From: "Roderick T. Beaman" The following is the text of an article that was published under my by-line earlier this week at www.libertyforall.net. THE CONSTITUTION - HIGHEST LAW? LOWEST PENALTIES! There is a general principle of law that the more serious the crime, the greater the penalty. Thus, homicide, assaults and rape have generally drawn harsher penalties than theft. Within categories of crime, the same holds true. Armed robbery generally draws a more severe penalty than embezzlement and larger amounts more than smaller amounts. How then do we explain the disparity between violations of the Constitution and ordinary law? If we regard the Constitution as the highest law in the land, then why are there no penalties when the Constitution is violated? Do our lawmakers view such offense so lightly that they assign no penalty for breaking its provisions? This at the same time that they will throw Martha Stewart in jail for lying to a federal investigator? One answer is that constitutional violations are perpetrated by these selfsame government officials. It’s easily understood that they’d be reluctant to espouse penalties when it might apply to themselves. But is that an appropriate attitude? We’ve all seen the television programs where a defense attorney moves that some piece of evidence be barred from trial. It must happen three times a month on the various Law & Order incarnations when you include the reruns. The evidence gets tossed and can’t be used but what happens to the police or the prosecutors when the judge agrees with the defense attorney? Do they receive jail time? No. Do they get fined? No. Are there any repercussions on their careers? Possibly, but only after multiple offenses. Usually? No. At most, the judge bars the evidence or in the most egregious instances, he may refer the matter for review. Among their colleagues, they may become heroes or martyrs. Plus, there’s always that chance the defense attorney won’t bring it up or that the judge doesn’t toss it, in which case, they can wind up with an easy conviction and a star in their dossiers when it comes time for a promotion or another job application. The fact that an unfortunate victim may have been railroaded in a miscarriage of justice, phases no one. That the fundamental principles of our republic are trampled on by such as Abraham Lincoln, Franklin D. Roosevelt or Lyndon Johnson, may enshrine the violators in an historians’ Hall of Fame. These cases usually involve the Fourth or Fifth Amendments, sometimes the Sixth and occasionally The Eighth. The First is often at the center of free speech and press issues and the anti-establishment clause but the rest of the Constitution is generally ignored and government seizes Power. What about the rest of the Constitution? The only recent case that I remember that involved the main body of The Constitution was the line item veto that was passed, I think, under Pres. William Clinton, of all people. It was challenged by Sen. Harry Byrd of West Virginia, the King of Pork and his challenge was sustained. I recall no other matters but there may be some. Harry Byrd is a perfect example of the self-deception that lies at the hearts of our government officials today. The King of Pork, he has let it be known that The Constitution is so precious to him that he carries a copy of it next to his heart. When I first heard that, I felt like throwing up. Under the Constitution, Harry Byrd should have been impeached years ago and strung up. Does anyone remember a government official being jailed for having violated the Constitution? I don’t. Does it matter if any government agency, federal state or local violates any of it? Rarely does it even come into play. They’re not even thrown out of office, yet it would seem that if an action is found to be in violation of the Constitution, including the rights of the accused, it’s prima facie evidence the official violated his oath and thus he is disqualified for office. This would extend to the elected representatives who voted for any such law. Yet, no elected official is impeached let alone tried. The law is just defunct. Nothing happens to the perpetrators. Our system doesn’t even provide for punishment of the offenders other than an impeachment which happens far less often than a solar eclipse. It would seem safe to conclude that lying to a federal investigator is a far more serious crime than actions that do violence to The Constitution. So what’s more important, The Constitution or the laws that arise under it? Our officials talk about putting teeth into our laws. Maybe it’s about time they put some teeth into the Constitution. As things stand now, we can infer that the Constitution is less important than the law. I suggest it’s time that changed. Roderick T. Beaman The Crazy Libertarian Protect Freedom - Disarm The Government.