Other parts of the pledge are more problematic. Some parts are jousting with enemies who are either imaginary or harmless. Some parts are logically impossible.
So let's look at the pledge, bit by bit.
Through the Constitution, "We the People" created the most enduring government charter in world history.
Agreed. It does my heart good to see you embrace American Exceptionalism.
Building on the achievements of the Founding generation, successive generations of Americans have created a "more perfect union" through constitutional Amendments. These Amendments have improved our Constitution by ending slavery, enshrining guarantees of equality and citizenship, expanding the right to vote...
...and ensuring that the national government has the power and resources necessary to protect the nation, address national challenges and secure civil rights.
Not so fast. The Amendments have indeed empowered the federal government in important areas, but they have definitely not expanded its power to include everything that might be described as a "national challenge" or to secure everything that might be considered a "civil right."
One of those Amendments was the Tenth Amendment, which confirms
explicitly what was implicit in the original design. If a governmental
power is neither assigned to the federal government nor forbidden to the
states, it remains with the states.
Some have advocated repeal of Amendments, including the 14th Amendment, the 16th Amendment, and the 17th Amendment, that make our Constitution better and this country great.
Who exactly are the "some" who advocate repeal of the 14th Amendment? Nobody who needs to be taken seriously. That notion is completely wacko. If a great dane is attacked by a chihuahua do we really need to rush to the dane's defense?
As to repeal of the 17th Amendment, direct election of senators,
there is a lively academic discussion, but it's purely academic. I
would oppose the proposal if opposition were needed, but it's not. The notion
of letting Darrell Steinberg et al. choose California's senators is
positively appalling. For the Feinstein seat, coming up for reelection
next year, they might very well make a worse choice. But as a practical
political matter, the 17th-repealers haven't got a snowball's chance in
hell, so why bother?
For the 16th, income tax, people who want to abolish that tax and replace
it with a different kind of tax, such as a consumption tax, are not wacko.
There are decent economic arguments for that. But that does not take a
constitutional amendment. Congress could repeal the income tax by
statute, if the repealers got just a simple majority of both houses.
That would render the 16th Amendment an unused part of the Constitution, like
the Third Amendment. I don't think there is any serious danger of its repeal.
Some have even failed to heed the lessons of the Civil War and the Civil Rights Movement and have advocated a return to ideas of secession and nullification.
A bit of loose talk about secession is just hyperbole. Nobody's
going to refight the Civil War. The history of nullification is more
complex. When Jefferson and Madison drafted state resolutions against
the Alien and Sedition Acts, they were right on the substance, even if
their remedy was ineffective. Calhoun's nullification effort was less
well grounded on the substance, but it was equally ineffective. Yet we
need not and should not be completely dependent on the courts to protect
the constitution from encroachment. The courts are sometimes the
encroachers. Continued discussion of alternatives is not a threat.
Indeed, it is a constitutional right. Nothing here to get bent out of
I believe that our Constitution has been improved by the Amendments adopted over the last 220 years.
All the amendments? That presents a bit of a conundrum. Do you, Constitutional Progressives,
believe the Constitution was improved by the 18th Amendment,
prohibition? Do you believe it was improved by the 21st Amendment,
repeal of prohibition? Do you believe both? How? Do you categorically
oppose repeal of any amendment? If so, you have to oppose the 21st
Amendment, which repealed an amendment. Would you then support repeal of the
21st Amendment? Paging Harry Mudd.
I pledge to support the whole Constitution.
I do indeed, dear Constitutional Progressives, including the Tenth Amendment. I'm not too sure if you really do, though.