A New Declaration in Defense of Law, Liberty, and the Public Trust, on the Eve of America's Semiquincentennial

¶To Our Fellow Citizens

George Washington called our national union "the palladium of your political safety and prosperity." That union rests not on shared party but on shared principle. The Constitution, which binds us as one people, vests in Congress the solemn power to impeach and remove a President who betrays the public trust. This power exists as a safeguard: "to provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity."

We address this document to Americans of all political convictions who believe that no person stands above the law, that power must answer to principle, and that the office of the presidency carries obligations that transcend any single occupant. What follows is not an exercise in partisan advantage but a defense of the constitutional order itself.

¶The Constitutional Case that Compels Action

¶I. Corruption and Cronyism

The Constitution requires that the President "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed." It prohibits the acceptance of emoluments from foreign powers without Congressional consent. These provisions exist because the Founders understood that private interest corrupts public duty.

George Washington warned that "cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government." When government positions are awarded on personal loyalty rather than merit, when public policy serves private enrichment, when the line between the Treasury and personal accounts grows indistinct, when the machinery of state becomes the instrument of personal gain, we witness the corruption Washington feared. The republic cannot function when those entrusted with power treat the public trust as private property.

¶II. Abuse of the Pardon Power

The pardon power, while broad, was never intended as a tool to obstruct justice or reward confederates. Alexander Hamilton wrote in Federalist 74 that this power would be exercised with "scrupulousness and caution." When pardons systematically shield allies from accountability or nullify lawful convictions to benefit associates, the power becomes an instrument of lawlessness rather than mercy.

¶III. Abuse of Foreign Economic Powers

Congress holds the constitutional authority "to regulate Commerce with foreign Nations." When economic powers delegated to the executive are wielded capriciously, without clear national interest, or as instruments of personal vendetta rather than considered policy, this constitutes a usurpation of legislative authority and a breach of public trust.

¶IV. Disregard for Treaties and Allied Relations

The Constitution declares treaties to be "the supreme Law of the Land." The President serves as the face of our nation to the world, and with that role comes the duty to maintain the alliances that secure our peace and prosperity. When longstanding treaties are treated with contempt, when allies are antagonized without cause, the security of the nation is endangered and our word as a people is diminished.

¶V. Violation of Constitutional Rights and State Sovereignty

The Bill of Rights guarantees every person life, liberty, and property, with due process of law. The privilege of habeas corpus shall not be suspended except in cases of rebellion or invasion. The Tenth Amendment reserves to the states all powers not delegated to the federal government.

When immigration enforcement tramples these protections, when citizens and non-citizens alike are detained without due process, when state authority is overridden without legal basis, when fundamental rights are sacrificed in the name of executive action, we witness precisely the tyranny our Constitution was designed to prevent.

¶The Moral Case that Invites Reflection

Too often in recent years, our discourse has fixated on testing the limits of presidential power. We parse statutes, debate prosecutorial discretion, probe the boundaries of executive authority. The question that should occupy us is older, simpler, and more fundamental. What values do we hold? What virtues and ideals do we aspire to? Who are we as a nation? These are questions every individual must confront, and we must demand considered, scrutable quality of character from all who are entrusted as representatives of we the people, at every level of government.

George Washington wrote that "religion and morality are indispensable supports" to political prosperity, that "in vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness." He was not speaking of sectarian doctrine but of the basic moral framework without which no republic can long endure. He understood that a nation conceived in liberty must be sustained by virtue, or it will collapse under the weight of its own freedoms.

The presidency is an office of trust. It demands dignity, truthfulness, and a commitment to the common good. When that office is occupied by one who treats truth as negotiable, who wields cruelty as policy, who elevates personal grievance above national interest, the office itself is degraded. The question is not whether such conduct violates a criminal statute. The question is whether it violates every standard we claim to hold dear.

In Common Sense, Thomas Paine wrote that government's purpose is to secure "freedom and security." When government becomes the instrument of one person's will rather than the people's welfare, when power is exercised without regard for those it governs, it risks destroying its own legitimacy.

Washington warned us to "guard against the impostures of pretended patriotism." We see those impostures now. Patriotism is not the language of personal loyalty. It is not the spectacle of flags and slogans deployed to silence criticism. It is not the claim that questioning power is tantamount to hating country. True patriotism lies in the defense of principle, in the willingness to hold even the most powerful accountable, in the courage to say that the nation is larger than any individual who leads it.

We do not ask for political agreement. We ask for acknowledgment that certain standards transcend party: that honesty matters, that the rule of law matters, that constitutional limits exist for a reason, that cruelty is not strength, and that the President must embody, not degrade, the office. These are not partisan preferences. They are the moral pillars upon which the republic stands.

¶A Return to Principle

This concerns whether we remain a nation of laws or become a nation of personalities. It concerns whether the Constitution means what it says, or whether its words are merely suggestions to be discarded when inconvenient.

Washington told us that the Constitution "is sacredly obligatory upon all." Not conditionally obligatory. Not obligatory when convenient. Sacredly obligatory. The word choice was deliberate. Our constitutional order is not a menu from which we select the provisions we favor and ignore the rest. It is a binding covenant, entered into by the people, enforceable against all who hold power.

The remedy for constitutional abuse is clear. It was placed in the Constitution deliberately. It is impeachment, followed by trial, and if warranted, removal from office. This is not a radical act. It is the Constitution functioning as designed.

Washington warned that "the precedent must always greatly overbalance in permanent evil any partial or transient benefit." What precedent do we set if we do nothing? We set the precedent that the constitutional limits on presidential power are dead letters. We set the precedent that personal loyalty matters more than public service, that self-dealing is tolerable, that the pardon power can be wielded to obstruct justice, that treaties can be discarded on a whim, that constitutional rights can be trampled in the name of executive preference.

The damage would echo through every future presidency. Leaders, looking back, would see that we tested the Constitution and found it wanting. They would conclude that we weighed our duty and chose expedience. They would govern accordingly.

We call upon Congress to fulfill its constitutional duty. Every member swore an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States. Not to defend a party. Not to defend a president. To defend the Constitution. That oath demands action when the Constitution is violated.

We call upon our fellow citizens to demand accountability from our representatives. Popular government depends on an informed and engaged citizenry willing to hold power to account. If we the people do not insist that our representatives uphold their oaths, then representative government becomes a fiction.

We call upon all who believe in the American experiment to remember that no office, no matter how high, places its holder beyond the reach of justice. The founders created a presidency subject to law.

Impeachment is a remedy for one presidency. But the restoration of our constitutional order requires something deeper: a return to the shared principles that make self-government possible. We cannot legislate virtue, but we can demand it from those who seek power. We cannot mandate civic commitment, but we can model it in our own engagement. We cannot force unity, but we can choose principle over party as the foundation of our political life.

This is the work before us.