We have a Government, but do we have a Constitution?

The Brits are proud of the fact that they haven't a Constitution. They have a government of course, but they have one without the unnecessary burden of a Constitution (kind of like the Naval Academy, who boasts of having a Student Honor System without the unnecessary burden of a Student Honor Code).

My question to you all is simply this, do we -- as Americans -- have a Constitution any longer?

And if we do, should we be proud of it -- against our counterparts in England? And if we don't should be decry the fact that we are becoming so....."British"?

I will pose this question in the form of a narrative, but feel free to comment on the question itself, if you like:

In 2012, my former Governor runs for President. No, I don't mean Palin. I mean the Governator.

As a wildly popular two-term Republican governor from a Democratic State, the Republicans love him! They rave about him. They worship him. The Democrats aren't so thrilled. They think the sky is falling. They predict that blood will run in the streets if he is elected. Still mad at his attempts to undermine their influence in California, the unions threaten a four-year-long strike.

Then an enterprising Democratic lawyer remembers something and pulls out his pocket Constitution. He notes Arnold's 14 years as a resident of these United States, his longevity in excess of thirty-five years, and.....oh wait. The ever present natural born citizen clause. Ah ha! Arnold was born in Austria. He files a lawsuit on behalf of his candidate, and sues to have the Governator's Presidential Candidacy invalidated.

Arnold's legal team responds with the following argument:

Arnold fully meets the intent of all three requirements for someone to become a candidate for President of the United States. He has lived in America in excess of 14 years (demonstrated by his US Passport, voting record, and other documents). He is over 35 (demonstrated by his Austrian birth certificate from 1947). He is fully and completely American, having relinquished his Austrian citizenship during his second term as Governor. As two-term Governor of the most populous state in the union, he was fully vetted prior to declaring his candidacy. As California Governor, he had access to all state secrets, far surpassing the level of even a "Top Secret" security clearance. The Natural Born citizen clause was originally intended to ensure that no candidate for president was a foreign agent of another country, or maintained conflicting loyalties with another country. Having already relinquished his Austrian citizenship prior to declaring his candidacy, and as no one in any way doubts his loyalty to these United States, he is fully qualified to be a presidential candidate.

How 'bout it? As judge, which way would you vote?




Yes, his candidacy meets the spirit (if not the letter) of the Constitution?
Or no, his candidacy violates a clear prohibition in the U.S. Constitution, the Supreme Law of the Land?


Tomorrow, Obama is scheduled to announce Senator Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State (once thought to be the position most likely to prepare a person for the presidency). There's a problem though. That problem is the U.S. Constitution. It reads:

"No Senator or Representative shall, during the Time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil Office under the Authority of the United States which shall have been created, or the Emoluments whereof shall have been increased during such time; and no Person holding any Office under the United States, shall be a Member of either House during his Continuance in Office." (Art I, Sec. 6)

During Hillary Clinton's current term in the Senate, the salary for Cabinet officers (which includes the office of Secretary of State) was increased from $186,600 to $191,300.


If Senator Clinton is named Secretary of State, are we not become more like the Brits? Have we now a government without a constitution?