Dispelling the Myth of Section Three’s ‘Dangerous’ Enforcement

’, or ‘will the President and Congress go alongñ…’ have no place.” That is true, of course.  And indeed it is not an argument that ever should be addressed – by a court or any other responsible interpreters of the Constitution – in their discharge of their duties.  To succumb to that way of thinking would be to throw away the rule of law, and constitutionalism. In our view, the most unfortunate aspect of the various dangerousness objec is that it may contain at least a grain of truth.  It is true that faithful interpretation of many constitutional provisions historically has at times led to heightened political tensions, and sometimes even to violence.  The Thirteenth Amendment and the end of Reconstruction provide quite striking examples in point.  But that’s not a sufficient ground to abandon the correct interpretation of the Constitution for some purportedly pragmatic reason.  To do so would play directly into the hands of those who would use threats of violence, political disruption, or other extreme tactics to get their way.  It is to demonstrate that their tactics work.  And it is to reward those who would defy the Constitution with threatening conduct. The more rigorous and reliable response is to assert and embrace the morally and legally proper understanding and application of the fundamental law, and to stand up to those who would threaten public order or the rule of law.  It is to make clear that the U.S. Constitution is not a form of words to be waived or imposed according to the approval of those who would defy its meaning and terms. The real danger to the rule of law and public order comes from the failure of those who are entrusted to ensure that the pr constitutional norms and principles are upheld.  If they succumb to threats of political violence, they themselves become complicit in the weakening and ultimate disintegration of law and order, and thus of the constitutional republic itself.