A U.S. Constitution for Our Dystopian Present

We the People of the United States of America, to relieve ourselves of the burdens of virtue and the nuisance of self-government, and to secure the blessings that flow from the collective and the isolated individual, do establish this Constitution.

There shall be a Supreme Court of the United States, composed of nine lawyers.  All cultural questions shall be submitted to their purview, and shall be decided according to their predilections.

For the purposes of this Constitution, “the people” shall be construed as a mass of individuals, without any other political standing but that which is granted to them by their participation in the electoral process.

The Supreme Court shall be charged with expunging all religious language, imagery, allusion, reasoning, and custom from every civic space, at the level of the nation, the state, the county, the municipality, and the school.  “Freedom of religion” shall signify the national government’s permission, under conditions conducing to peace and order as construed by the government, for individuals to enter houses of worship and engage in activities that have no bearing on anything of importance in political life.

All civically expressed customs regarding the sexes individually and their relationship with one another shall be overridden, at the decision of the archons of the Supreme Court.

This Constitution decrees that men and women, as such, do not exist.

The right of “the people” to bear arms shall be absorbed by an immense standing army, for national defense and meddling in the affairs of barbaric nations, by a National Guard, for disaster relief and for the enforcement of national laws against the recalcitrance of the states, by a Federal Bureau of Investigation, by a National Security Administration, by a Central Intelligence Administration, by a Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms, by a Transportation Safety Administration, and by police forces in the individual states, counties, and municipalities.  The permission for individuals to bear arms shall be abridged, progressively, towards the aim of complete disarmament.

Congress shall pass no laws abridging freedom of speech.  For the purposes of this Constitution, “speech” shall include pornographic pictures and films and other displays of obscenity, even those which are neither spoken nor verbal.  But speech which pertains to politics may be abridged, if Congress deems that the monies spent for the venues for such speech exceed an amount which a reasonable person would determine as appropriate for the losing candidate in an election.  Public institutions funded by national monies may also abridge speech, if it is determined that those in power, or those groups they favor, would be made uncomfortable by it.

Truth shall be understood as no defense for any individual speaking against a favored group.  Truth shall not be demanded of any individual speaking against a group attracting the contempt of the government, or of those in the press who do the government’s bidding.

The individual shall not be subject to unreasonable search and seizure, unless one of the following conditions applies:

He is a student in a public school, with a locker.
He has filed a tax return.
He uses the internet.
He makes a telephone call.

No man shall be deprived of life or liberty except by due process of law, unless one of the following conditions applies:

He is an unborn child.
He is old and forgetful, and has pneumonia.
He wishes to take his life and to suborn the assistance of a physician.
He will probably die anyway, and he possesses organs that can be harvested.

No man shall be deprived of his property, unless the municipality seizing it deems that it can garner more tax money from a new owner.

“The Press,” for the purposes of this Constitution, shall mean any and all means of expressing any thought whatsoever, so long as the thoughts are conducive to good order and progress.  The actual press shall be conglomerated into a “mass media,” that the whole nation may hear only one voice, and speak with one voice, with only small varieties in accents.

The national government shall not abridge the just freedom of action of the states.  This freedom, however broad, shall be duly circumscribed.  The states shall be, to the national government, as a tethered dog to its master; municipalities, as the tail to the dog; individuals, as the hairs on the tail; families, and churches, and all other entities claiming moral authority apart from or over against the national government, as fleas upon the hairs on the tail, or other noxious matter.

If one state in the Union shall decree something which has been considered contrary to nature, as, for example, that small children can serve in the armed forces, or that cows shall fly, no other state need give full faith and credit to the aforementioned action, unless it shall be deemed as destructive of the Church, public morals, and the family, in which case the benefit to the national government shall outweigh all other interests.

Whereas quarrels among Christian denominations have instigated every war in the history of the United States, to wit, the Revolutionary War, the War of 1812, the Indian wars, the Mexican War, the Civil War, the Spanish American War, World War I, World War II, the Korean War, the Vietnam War, the Cold War, the first and second Iraq Wars, and the War in Afghanistan; and whereas the Founders of this country and all correctly-thinking and progressive people are at worst indifferent to religion, and at best hostile to it; and whereas religion in general, and the Christian religion in particular, has contributed nothing to the arts, to letters, to the founding of civic and educational institutions, to private and public charities, and to science; and whereas the last barriers to the all-competent State are the family and the Church, we decree that the former shall possess no prescriptive rights and duties and no legitimate zone of authority of its own, and the latter shall be allowed to continue only under sufferance.

Any person wishing to represent a state in the Senate must be a resident of that state.  Residency may be established by the purchase of a property in that state, be it a house, or an apartment, or a share in a condominium, or a bed in a flophouse, or a pushcart.  The candidate must prove either that he or she has resided at said property for more than one day, or has set foot on said property, or has directed a subordinate to set foot upon it, or has expressed, publicly or privately, the intention of setting foot upon it within ten years or the candidate’s decease, whichever shall come first.

There shall be a legislative body comprising two chambers.  These shall be peopled by male and female lawyers, jobbers, actors, tools of business interests, tools of governmental interests, panders, prostitutes, ruffians, hypocrites, and imbeciles.  They shall, each year, determine what funds are available for the national government to spend, and then they shall exceed such amount, by a degree and in a manner determined by secret dealing, bribery, extortion, and folly.  Almost all genuine legislating shall be undertaken by those departments attendant upon the Executive, and by the archons of the Supreme Court.

No department of the national government may borrow money from any other department of the national government, unless there be provided on a slip of paper a firm promise to pay the money back, by an indeterminate date which shall recede into the future, as need be.

There shall be polls conducted by news organizations, campaigns, and special interest groups, to consume the excess wealth of the nation, to protract the election seasons, and to ensure that platitudes alone shall ever reach the ears of the masses.  Congress shall pass no laws inhibiting the work of pollsters, lest thought return to the political system.

Congress shall pass no bill short enough to be read by its members, or clear enough to be understood by them.

The national government shall be empowered to direct all actions that have any bearing, however slight or tangential or supposititious, upon the national welfare.  If a man should stand upon the border of a state, be it Iowa, and make water into another state, be it Minnesota; or if he should, while residing in Rhode Island, consider purchasing a croquet mallet in Massachusetts, and then think better of it; or if he should consult an atlas, or glance at a photograph of another state, or utter the word “New” or “North” or “Jersey,” then the full weight of the corpus of national regulations and laws may be brought to bear upon him.

For the purposes of this Constitution, “interstate commerce” shall not refer to commerce, or to any transaction among the states.  It is a placeholder to be filled by the national government, according to the views prevailing among the best and wisest people, and the archons of the Supreme Court.

There shall be an Internal Revenue Service.  This body shall be charged with rifling money from the people and from corporations, not to fund the operation of the national government, but to direct and manage the private and local decisions of individuals, schools, businesses, clubs, villages, towns, cities, farms, and states.  It shall prosecute its work diligently and impartially, with these exceptions:

The taxpayer is very rich.
The taxpayer is frowned upon by the national government.

There shall be a National Department of Education.  This body shall be charged with managing all public schools in the nation, by means of direct oversight; the offer of funds on condition; the threat of withholding funds; the threat of loss of accreditation; and friendly relations with teachers’ unions and the publishers of textbooks.

For the purposes of this Constitution, “education” shall comprise the following:

The capacity to read a short novel mass-marketed to adolescent females.
The knowledge of how to apply for funds from the national and state governments.
The possession of the proper opinions on matters deemed crucial by the mass media, the Department of Education, or the archons of the Supreme Court.

A declaration of War shall be made only by the Congress, but the Executive may prosecute a war without such declaration, if Congress shall look the other way, or if the Executive shall deem it necessary for his electoral prospects.

Congress shall have the power to levy any tax whatsoever, upon any person or persons, for any amount, by any means, and for any purpose.  Congress may tax James Rowe for dancing to the piper, and Gerard Hill, for declining to dance.  Congress may wring goods for the prodigal and indolent from the sweat of other men’s brows.

The Executive shall work by means of hundreds of departments, which will labor beneath or above or beyond public surveillance, but with the close cooperation of large businesses and unions and other contributors of money to political agents.  The Executive and his subordinates may not profit from any such collaboration, unless the profit be political, or deferred to the years when the Executive shall have retired from office.

Congressional districts shall be drawn without regard to already existing boundaries of coherent geographical and political communities, such as wards, precincts, boroughs, towns, cities, or counties.  Political parties shall be empowered to carve the electorate between them, as a turkey for Thanksgiving.

The national government and institutions of higher learning reserve the right to levy monies or to fix their fees according to the amount that is deemed possible to be squeezed from an individual or his family.

There shall be a Federal Reserve Board, with the power to tax the people by deflating the value of their money, without act of Congress.

If the Executive shall have flouted the laws passed by Congress, or reneged upon his vow to uphold this Constitution, the Congress shall be empowered to issue articles of impeachment, on condition that a quorum of Congressmen can be found who have not done exactly the same.  For the purposes of impeachment, said quorum shall consist of two (2) members of the House of Representatives.

Every citizen may be allowed to vote at least once in every election.  No citizen may hinder any person from voting.  Citizenship shall, for the purposes of this Constitution, signify any person’s living within or stepping over the boundaries of the United States.  No knowledge of any public matter may be deemed as prerequisite for voting, nor any allegiance to the United States.

Any citizen beyond the age of eighteen may cast a vote in a national election, so long as there is probable cause to believe that said citizen is still living.

There shall be only such freedom of association as is deemed conducive to national interests.  The membership of all clubs and charities shall be subject to general oversight by the Supreme Court.  Any person transacting business of any sort shall be forbidden to decline association with any other person, unless the grounds are those that shall have been permitted by the national government.  John Nokes may not decline to do business with William Doe, because William Doe belongs to a category of persons benignantly regarded; but he may decline to do business with Robert Green, because Green belongs to a category of persons held in contempt.

The ancient Constitution which the present replaces shall not be subject to contemptuous treatment.  Its pages shall be embossed upon the hygienic tissue in the washrooms of the White House, Congress, and the Supreme Court, that the leaders of the people may continue forever in private to give it that due honor they have ever graced it withal in their more public actions.

Inasmuch as the words “good” and “evil” are empty of meaning, except as determined by the experts denominated above, the people shall possess only such rights as the government may concede to them.  All rights not expressly conceded shall be reserved to the national government, and most particularly to the archons of the Supreme Court.

If, in the course of human events, the express language of this Constitution shall be deemed as a hindrance to Progress, it shall be within the power of the Supreme Court, the Executive, and the Legislature, not to violate its sacred text, but to amend it tacitly, so that white shall be black, cold shall be hot, and free shall be bond.

Anthony Esolen


Professor Esolen is a teaching fellow and writer in residence at Thomas More College of the Liberal Arts, in Merrimack, New Hampshire. Dr. Esolen is a regular contributor to Crisis Magazine and the author of many books, including The Politically Incorrect Guide to Western Civilization (Regnery Press, 2008); Ten Ways to Destroy the Imagination of Your Child (ISI Books, 2010) and Reflections on the Christian Life (Sophia Institute Press, 2013). His most recent books are Reclaiming Catholic Social Teaching (Sophia Institute Press, 2014); Defending Marriage (Tan Books, 2014); Life Under Compulsion (ISI Books, 2015); and Out of the Ashes (Regnery, 2017).

  • Deacon Ed Peitler


    The one thing I would add to our new Constitution is that interstate commerce shall warrant the government insinuating itself into every act undertaken among the sundry States. Interstate commerce shall herein be defined as breathing the same air that can be assumed to have travelled among the sundry States since breathing is considered the sine qua non for executing any commerce.

  • crakpot


    You may want to throw in something for the greenies, at least a mandate to hysterically fear the evil carbon dioxide molecule.

    • Guest

      crakpot, I’m surprised to see this suggestion on a Catholic site. The Vatican is a major supporter of climate science (the findings of the Pontifical Academy of Science are congruent with those of the IPCC) and the Vatican has spoken out very strongly about the effects of climate change on the poor.

      Nowadays, one has to be completely scientifically illiterate to deny the reality of the problem.

      • James1

        As scientists have acknowledged the earth’s climate has changed radically over the millennia, I would like the scientists to also provide a number that represents the temperature at which the earth *should* be. Forever. And Man shall not alter.

        I think it rather arrogant that Man believes he can cause/prevent such climate changes as have happened in the earth’s past (before Man had such power as to affect the climate). I also think it arrogant that some (scientists or not) “know” what the ideal temperature of the earth should be. Certainly, it is possible to identify a temperature that’s more comfortable to man, beast and plant, but on what authority does a scientist call to declare we must purchase carbon credits, be subject to fees/taxes for breathing heavily, or producing the gas that plants actually use.

        Yes, the Church does, indeed, teach responsible stewardship of that which God has given us. However, I’m not sure the goals or motivations of the secular scientists or governments are quite the same. Scientists need funding, governments need something to do, and I doubt either will claim it is for the respect of God’s creation.

        Really, should the earth be subject to another “ice age” or tropical age, is it a *problem* that Man can do anything to prevent at the behest of the infallible scientist?

        • TheodoreSeeber

          One does not need to acknowledge “anthropomorphic climate change” to notice “climate change”. I still think it presents as many opportunities as it does challenges. More energy reaching through our atmosphere should be a good thing, if we can figure out how to collect and use it.

          • James1

            I am not disputing climate change absolutely, but I do dispute that Man can do anything to prevent as radical a change as has happened in this planet’s past. No matter how many “carbon credits” I might purchase/trade, no matter how “green” an automobile I operate, etc, the planet will continue to experience such cycles just as it has before Man had the wherewithal to do more than breathe and make fire.

            There is still the unanswered question of what is the magical temperature at which We are admonished/chided to maintain this planet. After all, if We are affecting the climate adversely, from what ideal temperature have We strayed? As well, who is the authority to say the planet must be maintained at said temperature? Does that not come across as mighty arrogant to believe that Man can prevent Global-Scale Nature from doing what Global-Scale Nature has done for millennia prior to man?

            • TheodoreSeeber

              I have a tendency to agree with the first part.

              With the second- yes it does come across as arrogant, but the fact is we may be at a stage in our technology where we *can* do something.

              The ideal temperature from which we have strayed: sufficiently cold enough to maintain the polar ice caps and raise food in the tropics.

              The solutions we can try, none of which are guaranteed:
              1. Grow more food in a more distributed pattern. There’s absolute no reason other than economic that our cities should not be green. And by that I don’t mean just leeds compliant platinum, I mean colored green when seen from the air- every rooftop covered with solar panels and/or vegetation, and not only producing enough energy to run the building on site, but also using waste water disposed of in the building recycled for food. The nice thing about food is that we all need it, and growing it (at least the plant based variety) soaks up atmospheric carbon.
              2. The powdered aluminium in orbit attempt- cheap and easy to try. Can divert a waste stream to it.
              3. Your low lying nation in poverty getting flooded? Send Japanese engineers in, at the cost of the UN, to build you some nice floating cities!

              Just three ideas that can be tried.

      • Adam Baum

        What problem? The global cooling of the 1970’s? The global warming of the last decade? Or the new generic “climate change”?
        Where I sit, within a three minute walk is the fossil of a mastadon. It ls estimated to have lived 10-20,000 years ago, and the remains were found 90 miles away. It thrived in a glacial environment, something that hasn’t existed here at this latitude for thousand of years. It strode at the petriphery of massive deposits of coal that were the result of near tropical conditions that existed millions of years before it and humanity existed.
        Green is the new red.
        There’s a difference between science and scientism.
        Hopefully, the recent supplication to St. MIchael will be effecacious in cleansing the Church.

        • Guest

          James1, the Vatican makes the very same claims as the IPCC scientists out of respect for God’s creation. And, yes, Man can certainly do a great deal to mitigate the problem of climate change. I agree with the Vatican that it would be irresponsible to do otherwise. To both James1 and Adam Baum: I suggest you swat up on the science. If you disagree with the current consensus, feel free to publish a scientific refutation. Until then, I’ll trust the experts.

          • Adam Baum

            You’ve already demonstrated that you don’t understand science.
            You tell people to “swat up” on science, without knowing anything about them, i.e., lacking of empirical data.
            Why don’t you put on your big boy pants, leave mom’s basement, cash your Soros check and leave us alone.

            • Guest

              Are you always so dumb and rude? If you disagree with the current state of the science, the onus is on you to prove your claim.

              • Adam Baum

                I’m always dismissive of the brainwashed. Since you aren’t “science”, but a cult member, why don’t you prove your claim.

                • Guest

                  The claim has already been proven. That’s why it’s accepted by every major scientific institution in the world, 97% of climatologists, and our own Catholic Church. If you want to dispute established science, the onus is on you to provide some evidence. There are two very good reasons you can’t. One is that there isn’t any.

                  • Adam__Baum

                    As I said, “brainwashed”. Through out claims of “proven” just proves that you don’t understand multidimensional assertions.
                    Stammering with certitude doesn’t exhibit enlightenment, its a gross display of a need to study epistomology.

          • James1

            Unless I’m mistaken, “the Vatican” has not declared anything on climate change from Sacred Tradition, infallibly, binding on the faithful. Yes, catholics are called upon to be good stewards of God’s gifts, but I doubt the Church would refuse me communion if I refuse (as imbecilic) to accept the concepts of “carbon credits,” “carbon footprints,” or some other government-directed, scientist-recommended tax/fee/policy/what-not.

            “Consensus” is “science”? I thought science was all about reality, not consensus. How about that proof, you demand of others? I read of evidence, possibility, probability, plausibility, etc, but I fail to find *proof*. Can it be shown that the very CFCs from my mother’s Aquanet, lot number whatever of thirty years ago, actually made an “X” amount of the hole in the ozone?

            Can it be shown that Americans’ driving of the last 100 years contributed to the death of the dinosaurs (after all, radical climate change is caused by Man’s activity)? Which prompts me to ask, again: Might the scientists please state the temperature at which the earth *should* be?

            By the way, scientists are not universally of the same voice on the subject of global warming/global cooling/climate change, so which “experts” should we “trust?” Those that support your position, my position, or those that might be honest enough to admit there’s no real way to know except in hindsight?

            So, those experts in which you trust, do they know – without doubt – whether we are headed toward an ice age, or a tropical age? What proof do they possess that supports either result?

            • Adam__Baum

              Where I currently sit, a mere 20K years ago was a glacier. Today, it will be 100 degrees. What’s “normal”?

              So, “climate change” occurs. What isn’t so sure is why. You might think that thermonuclear furnace that brightens our day might have some influence, being as it is the source of all energy we have on this blue marble.

              But to pest, “climate change”, is implicitly anthropogenic, identifiable as to a specific cause, abnormal, reversible. He doesn’t stop to ask is climate variation a normal thing.

              His stammering that everybody else is unscientific reminds me of the fundamentalistalists who insist that people who don’t subscribe to the idea that the earth is 6,000 years are “unbiblical”.

        • kremmiz

          Actually Adam, there has been no global warming for the past decade. The last 10-15 years has remained steady, with no upward or downward trend. When you hear of another year of record, it is a repeat of the same record over the last decade. Not an actual ‘new’ record. At the moment this halt in global warming is being written off by the powers that be as some kind of as yet unidentified natural global climate variation that is currently working against the trend of man-made warming to produce a temporary neutrality.

          • Guest

            No, kremniz, that is definitely false. You are buying into the myth that there’s been no warming since 1998, which one hears over and over and over, especially on highly unreliable sources such as Fox “News”. This is a classic example of cherry picking data. 1998 was an extremely hot year and something of an outlier, but there have been hotter years since. 2000-2009 was a warmer decade than 1990-1999. 2005 and 2010 were warmer than 1998. It’s very easy to see this for oneself by looking at the graphs and explanations at http://grist.org/climate-energy/global-warming-stopped-in-1998/ . Unfortunately, this false information is still being bought by some, although the percentage of deniers is shrinking.

            • kremmiz

              Look at the end of that graph 🙂 Thank you for providing a graph that is consistent with what I said. Forget the smoothed line; look at the bars of the actual data. Now take into account that that graph is outdated and does not include the last 8 years of measured data that continues to show that for the time being warming has leveled off this last decade (but not cooling either). As a physicist myself, my source of info does not come from Fox News. I care about the straight FACTS, not from “media” sources that agree with my political views as you seem to do (“At Grist, we’re making lemonade out of looming climate apocalypse. Because of the many things this planet is running out of, sanctimonious tree-huggers ain’t one of them.”). My source of info is from a climatologist. Also, the page at your link (which happens to be 7 years old) seems to concern “Objection: Global temperatures have been trending down since 1998. Global warming is over.” If you had taken the time to really read my post, you would have seen that I said the trend has temporarily leveled off, not trending downward. There is a problem with some climatologists cherry picking data themselves, as well as manipulation by the media. In fact, most of their major models so far significantly exceeds actual real life measured data. The same models being used to tell the public that we are all going to be roasted boiled alive in 50 years do not match actual recorded data when compared for accuracy. There is still tremendously more to learn about the workings of the climate, but unfortunately the science has become largely corrupted for the time being by power-mongers and greed-mongers from both sides of the political spectrum.

              • Guest

                kremniz, you claimed Earth’s temperature has been steady (steady — not “trending down”) for 10-15 years. This is demonstrably false. You can’t possibly be a physicist if you believe this. Global temperature records are available right up to June, 2013 (the second warmest June on record, btw). Check them out. The first decade of the 21st century was the warmest on record. 2010 is the warmest year on record. Your “info is from a climatologist”? What climatologist? You have no information at all, only opinions. You’re obviously motivated by some sort of ideological bias as shown by your dismissal of serious scientists as “treehuggers”.

                • kremmiz

                  ” You’re obviously motivated by some sort of ideological bias as shown by your dismissal of serious scientists as “treehuggers”.”

                  Actually ‘Guest’, that was the self-description copied and pasted from your outdated source itself ;D They speak for themselves, and apparently your carelessness in choosing your sources, looking as far as whether it tickles your fancy and no farther. This indicates an ideological bent in your comments here. I recognize that there has been a trend of global warming. I also fully recognize that that warming can resume any year now. However, for the past decade or so there has been no increase in the averaged global temperature having flattened out temporarily. Therefore, what was once the warmest on record, remains so. As the temperatures repeat year after year, that record remains the same. The media yells out “Warmest on record!!!” while neglecting to correctly inform that it is simply a repeat of approximately the same temperatures. Over the last decade looking at the particular years within that decade, there is a flat slope. Please do not embarrass yourself any further here. Take the time to actually read and study things before making snap judgements…

        • ThirstforTruth

          Amen! ( your reference of supplication to St Michael! It was after
          we stopped the Leonine prayers following each and every Mass
          at the end of Vatican II that evil personified entered the Church)
          St Michael, defend us agains the wickedness of the Devil and all his evil cohorts who prowl the world seeking the ruin of souls.

      • crakpot

        One must be completely divorced of his senses to believe the earth can warm itself even the slightest with its own cold, faint “reflection” off the diabolical carbon dioxide molecule. Does your face burn when it gets a full reflection off the bathroom mirror?

        This superstition also fears water vapor. These two molecules are God’s plant food, becoming the raw material and energy source of every single animal on the planet. Does it make any sense at all that God’s design is so poor he made both “pollutants”?

        If your senses still don’t register, consider the real science of correctly controlled experiments, from which the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics was concluded. The colder air cannot warm the surface by any amount at all. It’s a perpetual motion machine.

        • Guest

          crackpot, I’m sorry but this reflects pure and unadulterated ignorance. Why is Venus farther from the sun than Mercury, but it is hotter than Mercury? Because of the greenhouse effect that traps solar energy. Obviously as the greenhouse gases in Earth’s atmosphere increase, it’s going to get warmer. As for whether God-created carbon dioxide and water vapor molecules in the atmosphere could be harmful, think of all the other molecules on Earth that can be harmful. Arsenic and cyanide, for example. If you’re still confused, bear in mind that the difference between a medicine and a toxin is often dosage. Some substances are helpful in moderation, damaging in excess.

          • crakpot

            So your entire list of potential causes of Venus’s temperature is distance from sun and al Gore’s superstition? Ever heard of adiabatic compression? Thermodynamics? Nice isolation of variables.

            Drink deep, or drink naught.
            If you don’t like the results, resort to celebrity opinions, then name calling. That should be in this constitution as well.

            • Guest

              Most scientists are not celebrities. And they’re very far from superstitious.

              • Adam__Baum

                But they can be corrupt or wrong. Your viscera is a damn poor judge of verity.

          • Adam__Baum

            “I’m sorry but this reflects pure and unadulterated ignorance. ”
            Are you always this dumb and rude?

  • Bill

    Mr. Esolen should stick with teaching Renaissance English Literature

    • Augustus

      And maybe you should write something worth reading.

    • Bucky Inky

      True, the opportunity costs are impossible to recover, but the fact is that Mr. Esolen is also sorely needed elsewhere these days.

  • Guest

    “Every citizen may be allowed to vote at least once in every election. … Any citizen beyond the age of eighteen may cast a vote in a national election, so long as there is probable cause to believe that said citizen is still living.”

    Let’s be honest about this supposed voter fraud myth that is being peddled by alarmists. It is not true. Despite all the hand-wringing and hysteria, the South Carolina State Election Commission found NO voter fraud in that state.
    Voter id laws, supposedly intended to reduce all this non-existent “voter fraud”, in Pennsylvania helped suppress Obama voters. Republican leaders have even admitted this, as can be seen at http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/07/17/2313571/top-pennsylvania-republican-admits-voter-id-helped-suppress-obama-voters/
    PA house leader Mike Turzai (R-PA) even bragged (a little prematurely) that voter id “gonna allow Governor Romney to win the state of Pennsylvania, done.”
    Now we know why Mitt planned the fireworks and celebrations last November even though every trusted poll showed him losing. He thought voter id would help him cheat his way to victory.

    • Tony

      Excuse me, but voter fraud has been endemic to Chicago for a LONG time. Are you telling me that NO non-citizens are voting? And NO people are showing up under a neighbor’s name to vote?

      • Guest

        These very emotional claims are usually found to be without foundation. Please provide evidence — hard evidence — that voter fraud has been a problem in the past 20 years. Every study has produced the same result — that voter fraud is negligible. The burden of proof is always on the person making a claim of existence. You are making a claim that there is a significant amount of voter fraud. Unless you have evidence for that claim, it is perfectly valid to hold that opinion. However, the evidence to the contrary provides far more compelling reason to hold the opposite opinion.

        • Deacon Ed Peitler

          Truth is wasted on people like you. Whatever it will take to show you the truth of what has happened to our country will never be enough for you. Pity!

        • Alecto

          Because Diebold made such reliable electronic voting machines that were incapable of being compromised? Because veterans votes are always counted? Because motor voter laws haven’t compromised citizenship status in order to be eligible to vote? Because Voter ID laws received the support of this Administration? Because “True the Vote” groups weren’t targeted by same?

          This is just too easy.

          • Adam Baum

            Don’t forget the Panthers standing in front of the polling place in Philadelphia, yelling “cracker” while wearing paramilitary tactical clothing.

      • Adam Baum

        Chicago? I’m surprised you haven’t heard the story that Richard Daley once said “I wish I had a machine like Scranton’s (Pennsylvania)”.
        Perhaps we can ask those fine Catholic politicians, the Caseys about it,

    • Adam Baum

      Ladies and Gentlemen, we have a troll.

      • Guest

        And his name is Adam Baum.

        • Adam Baum

          That’s the best you have?

  • Pingback: A U.S. Constitution for Our Dystopian Present | Catholic Canada()

  • James1

    Wow. Let’s hope this never happens in the United States of America.

    • Adam Baum

      It already has happened.

      • James1


        Too bad sarcasm gets lost in text…

        • Adam Baum


  • Tony

    Ladies and gentlemen — trolls distract from the main points. Don’t feed the trolls.

    • Guest

      If there are points that aren’t true, the main points are undercut.

  • Brian Sullivan

    worderful! Sure to offend everybody! Especially people with no sense of humor.

  • bob terry

    Nothing new here. Isn’t that what America has now?

  • Carl

    Steven Jonathan Rummelsburg’s Sophistical Education “Reformers” and how we are losing our language and their meanings makes all this possible. Just a litany list of human failures accomplished by the sophists.

  • guest


  • Carl

    Electing U.S. Senators 1913: Direct election of senators moved us from a complex Republic to a simple republic much like the style of government of the Soviet Union. State rights were lost and we were plunged headlong into a democracy of which our fore-fathers warned was the vilest form of government because it always end in oppression.

    Similar to the electoral college, the election of a President, when State Senators and House members voted for U.S. Senators less populous areas were afforded a voice in elections. This explains why U.S. Republicans still can do well in the U.S. House because of Voting Districts are more proportional.

    U.S. Senate races today require potential Senators to focus and win as many votes as possible in urban/suburban areas—many times completely ignoring rural areas—Pennsylvania is a prime example of this. California and Massachusetts are prime examples of states where a disproportional population lives in urban/suburban areas completely nullifying the rural vote—making it completely useless.

    This was planned and is why Democrats have dominates the U.S. Senate for a hundred years and will continue to do so. And is why they wield so much power creating the make-up of the U.S. Supreme Court—the Senate confirms them!

    • Alecto

      And 16 permitted creation of the income tax, and the power to tax is the power to destroy. Both Amendments ought to be repealed.

      • Adam Baum

        What fascinating is that nobody (else) ever questions their effects. After working in and studying government for a long time, I’ve come to a conclusion that the entire purpose of those amendments was to eliminate the place of states as legitimate political entities in the federal framework.
        States still exist on paper, but have been further weakened by “block grants” and “federal financial participation”. The Tenth Amendment has been defeased not by edict, but by bribery. (Witness the Kasich, Scott and the other governors accepting the obamacare exchange candy from the guy in the federal van).
        The entire purpose to destroying states is the same as the destruction of churches and families. Tyrannists want nothing between the individual and the administrative superstate. Remove intermediating institutions and the invidual stands exposed to the sinful world. Then it’s game over. The not only won’t resist the autocracy, they will clamor for it.
        It’s entirely to bad that some Catholics , including those with mitres use their knowledge of the temple arts to assist in the erection of this golden calf, summarily redacting subsidiarity and private property from Catholic social thought.
        I wonder how many clerics have met their Creator, assured of salvation because they relentlessly advocated for a larger, expansive and more government poverty apparatus, only to be told-what you did, you did not do in my name, I said have no strange gods, and since you spent more time as a supplication to your government than to me, and you spread it more than the faith, you shall spend eternity in hell with the lawyers, bureaucrats and politicians you treated as omiscient, benevolent and incorrupt.

  • slainte

    Thank you Professor Esolen for an excellent and sobering piece.
    A society that casts off christian morality for ease and convenience, and elevates man over God, makes your dystopian constitution not only possible, but inevitable.

    To restore our great and noble country, we must re-discover and re-embrace the moral foundations which promoted that greatness, and in particular, He who is the source and summit of all morality.
    A virtuous country requires a virtuous people.

  • Thomas Gallagher

    How ironic. All you needed in your new Constitution was the second paragraph: “There shall be a Supreme Court of the United States, composed of nine lawyers. All cultural questions shall be submitted to their purview, and shall be decided according to their predilection.”

  • Alecto

    This makes me very, very sad. If we did not actually believe in freedom and justice, this would be funny. Instead it leaves me with an overwhelming sense of failure, of mourning for the death of something special which once existed, like Camelot.

  • FrankW

    Thanks for a beautifully written article on the lessons and perils of an over-sized nanny-state government. We now have a government that seeks to usurp for itself the role of nature by declaring for itself authorship of things born of natural law. Marriage, life, children, freedom, liberty, all these things are no longer gifts from God via his nature, but rather rights bestowed on us at the whim of an all-powerful government.

    A government which deems itself the giver of all rights also has the power to rescind those rights as it sees fit.

  • yitsme

    Too much griping. This is the world we live in. Play by the rules and you get run over. The powerful have always twisted the laws to work for their own interest. What of it? Am I supposed to be less of a Christian because I live in a morally corrupt society? I believe that now is the time that the beatitudes kick in and Jesus calls us “blessed.” Of all the people that started out with Moses into the desert, none of the whiners made it. Toughen up.

    • Deacon Ed Peitler

      Nonsense. It is not whining when you expose the truth of our perverse society and government. If yours is an attempt to defend the status quo in our country, stop it!

      • yitsme

        These truths are self-evident to every Catholic in this country, of which I am one. Neither did I defend the status quo. But bearing our cross is an essential element of our Christianity. And I stick by with what I say. “Mommy, they stole my ball” is an immature reaction for a follower of Christ.
        Yes, it is crooked. And as trends are going, it is getting worse. How about an article on how to live as Catholics as a minority in a society which is adverse to the Gospel of Christ? How about getting people to realize what has already happened is not going to be reversed and they will have to deal with these issues? Convenient times or inconvenient, we still must live the Gospel. And there is no better imitation of Christ than when you are nailed to the Cross with Him, for at that moment you can practice your Christianity in the fullest: forgiveness, suffering, prayer, charity and sacrifice…all of this takes on added meaning because you could have become a whiner and abandoned it, and you chose to endure. Blessed be the Cross which makes Saints out of people like us. America is not the Church, and people who believe this to be the Promised Land are going into shock at this moment. Prepare for it and stop your whining.

        • Deacon Ed Peitler

          I agree with what you have now explained.

        • Adam__Baum

          Exception. In short run, living in a corrupt society is a necessity. However, the Gospel mandate is to “go and make disciples of all nations”, not to be resigned to living in a world of irreversible mass corruption. That’s been the approach of the Amish, and it’s unworkable.

          Moreover, it’s not just America which is in an existential crisis with moral, political and economic attributes. America was never a Catholic county, England was, and it passed from over persecution, to begrudging tolerance. Now persecution is back, albeit as of yet it’s characterized by cultural imperiousness and suppression and not beheadings.

          It has taken the better part of five centuries, and Anglicanism still survives, but increasingly it’s fatal flaw, the subordination of the spiritual to the political, renders it increasingly inanimate-the question in Britain will not be how to survive and rescue England from Vicars, but the victor of the coming war between militant Islam and militant secularism.

          • yitsme

            Clearly, these laws are a break from the past and a refutation of both Christian religion and natural law. What then is the god they are following? (I am having difficulty understanding this.) What is their motivation for this? Is it change for the sake of change? Perhaps superior minds just feel the need to set their own mark on the world; the architects of modern civilization must raze the past, keeping a few old things around for nostalgia—how quaint was the past.

            The rejection of Wisdom doesn’t mean that it is gone forever. She patiently bides her time until others pick her up again, which is usually right after the progressives with their superior intellects leave society in ruins.

            The storm is here. No use in denying it. The prayers need to change to reflect the reality of the situation. Pray for perseverance through trial and the skill of the helmsmen as they negotiate with the waves. In Britain, they did manage to put some protective measures for the Church into the law before it was signed. However, they could not fully protect education as to the teaching of Catholic doctrine on homosexuality and its practices. They did manage to get protection so that holding or voicing an opinion by an individual that marriage is a union between one man and one woman is not in itself to be considered hate speech. This clause is lacking in other states that have passed this legislation.

  • John Doman

    That. Was. AWESOME.

  • sibyl

    My country tis of thee
    Land of bureaucracy
    of thee I sing. (with a duly authorized license from the appropriate office, under appropriate oversight)
    Land where our calls are logged;
    conservatives are dogged;
    and pow’r in high court is hogged
    let Obama’s voice ring.

    (All together now…)

    • Nick_from_Detroit


  • Pingback: Mere Links 07.23.13 - Mere Comments()