If Our Cells Behaved Like We Do, the Nation Would Already Be Dead

by Darius A. Lecointe 

If the cells in our bodies responded to disease the same way Americans respond to violations of the national Constitution, none of us would still be alive.

A living organism cannot survive if its cells wait for instructions, hesitate out of politeness, or look to a single “supreme cell” to decide whether they are allowed to defend the body.

Yet that is precisely how the United States responds to constitutional injury.

We behave as though the Constitution is a passive rulebook that springs to life only when someone files a lawsuit. We behave as though the Oath of allegiance means nothing until the judiciary—an institution that was the last to receive the Oath—is “called upon.” And we behave as though violations of the Constitution can be tolerated indefinitely without consequence.

No biological system could survive under that model. Neither can a constitutional system.

The Constitution as DNA—not a rulebook

The metaphor is not rhetorical. It is structural.

Biologically, an organism survives because responsibility is distributed. Every cell contains the same genetic code and acts to defend the organism without waiting for external approval.

Constitutionally, the United States survives for the same reason.

The Constitution functions as a shared identity structure—our national DNA—given life not by judicial command but by the universal Oath of allegiance. The framers never intended the Court to be the sole guardian of constitutional meaning. The responsibility is collective.

Marshall understood this when he wrote in Marbury v. Madison that acts repugnant to the Constitution are void—not voidable, not subject to judicial grace, not contingent on litigation strategy. Voidness is an immediate consequence of constitutional violation, just as cellular immunity is an immediate response to biological threat.

We used to understand this

In Hayburn’s Case (1792), federal judges did not wait for a lawsuit. They informed President Washington within weeks that a portion of a statute he had signed was unconstitutional. Congress repealed it.

They acted as immune cells do: instantly, instinctively, and faithfully.

That is what constitutional fidelity once looked like. Today we would call it “activism.” They called it the Oath.

The modern failure of constitutional immunity

Our political culture now mirrors an immune system in collapse.

We complain.

We observe.

We wait for someone else to act.

We defer to courts that have mistakenly embraced a doctrine of self-restraint at the very moment the system requires vigilance.

Meanwhile, constitutional pathogens proliferate. Political actors exploit public ignorance. Whole branches of government refuse to perform their constitutional function unless formally “invited,” as though fidelity were optional.

If the body behaved this way, it would die of trivial infection.

If the Republic continues this way, it will fail by the same mechanism.

The only cure: universal constitutional awareness

The survival of a constitutional organism depends on citizens who understand what the Constitution requires—not just lawyers, not just scholars, not just judges. Everyone.

Without that awareness, the Hydraulic Constitutional Force—the Constitution’s natural self-correcting mechanism—cannot operate. The system becomes vulnerable to every opportunistic form of political disease.

We cannot wait for the next crisis to learn how our own Constitution works.

We cannot rely on institutions that have abdicated their role.

We cannot outsource vigilance.

A constitutional people must know what their cells know:

That the genetic code is already complete—it doesn't wait for permission to mean what it means.

That threats must be recognized immediately—not after someone files the right paperwork.

That responsibility is universal—every cell contains the same instructions.

We need citizens who know that an unconstitutional act is void the moment it occurs, not when a court says so.

Who know that the Oath of allegiance binds immediately, not eventually.

Who know that Hayburn's Case happened—that constitutional officers once acted like immune cells, swiftly and without permission.

Without that recognition capacity, the system cannot defend itself.

And if we continue unable to recognize constitutional injury when it occurs, the Constitution will die of infections we could not even name.

Part IX — A Blueprint for an America250 Declaration of Constitutional Renewal

by Darius A. Lecointe, PhD, JD 

As America approaches 2026, the 250th anniversary of independence offers a rare constitutional moment. Anniversaries alone do nothing, but they can focus national attention. America does not need a new constitution — it needs a renewed commitment to the one it already has. A Declaration of Constitutional Renewal would not alter the text but would re-anchor the national identity that the Constitution describes.

1. The Declaration Must Begin With Identity

A constitutional system cannot function without a shared identity. A renewal document must affirm the sovereignty of the Constitution, the equality of all citizens bound by it, and the primacy of responsibility over power.

Without shared identity, governance fails.

2. It Must Reject the Myth of Judicial Supremacy

A Declaration of Renewal should clarify that all branches — and the people — share responsibility for constitutional fidelity. The Court interprets; it does not define the nation. Renewal requires rebalancing constitutional duty across the system.

3. It Must Reaffirm the Oath as a Living Obligation

The Oath binds officials to protect the Constitution at all times, not only when litigation arises. A renewal declaration should restate that duty clearly. The Oath is not symbolic; it is the mechanism that connects identity to governance.

4. It Must Restore the Sequence of Constitutional Life

The Declaration should articulate the foundational order:

Identity → Governance → Fidelity → Force

Reversing this sequence produced the instability of 2025. Renewal requires restoring it.

5. It Must Acknowledge the Full Story of the Nation

A sustainable constitutional identity cannot be built on incomplete narratives. Renewal requires honesty about Indigenous sovereignty, the mixed motives of early settlers, the failures of institutions, and the resilience of constitutional principles.

Truth is the foundation of fidelity.

6. It Must Call Citizens Back Into Constitutional Stewardship

A Declaration of Renewal must emphasize that citizenship is an active constitutional role. The people are not observers of constitutional life; they are its engine.

7. It Must Chart a Forward Path

The Declaration should outline commitments for 2026 and beyond: i. institutional restraint, ii. legislative responsibility, iii. executive fidelity, iv. and civic vigilance.

The Goal of the Declaration

The objective is not ceremony. It is clarity.

A nation struggling with identity must deliberately reaffirm it — or risk losing it entirely.

Part VIII — Rebuilding Constitutional Identity for 2026 and Beyond

by Darius A. Lecointe, PhD, JD 

If America is to exit the cycle that began in 1621 and intensified through 2025, it must rebuild something more fundamental than institutions: its constitutional identity. A nation cannot sustain governance or fidelity when its people no longer share an understanding of who “we” are. As America approaches 2026 — the 250th anniversary of independence — the opportunity to renew identity is real, but the window is narrow.

1. Identity Must Be Chosen, Not Assumed

For most of U.S. history, Americans treated national identity as automatic. But identity is not inherited; it is maintained. The first step toward renewal is recognizing that constitutional identity must be consciously affirmed, not absorbed from myth or habit.

2. The Constitution Describes a People, Not a Government

Recovering identity requires returning to the original premise: the Constitution does not merely create institutions — it describes the character of the people who operate them. A renewed identity must therefore be committed to constitutional sovereignty, aware of the limits of power, and grounded in shared responsibility.

3. Myth Cannot Sustain Identity

The sentimental Pilgrim myth collapsed because it was never true. Modern myths are no more durable. A renewed identity must be built on historical honesty: the coexistence, conflict, and cooperation of many peoples whose stories were never reconciled. Integrity, not nostalgia, is the basis of constitutional life.

4. Citizenship Must Be Restored as a Constitutional Role

Citizens cannot remain spectators. Rebuilding identity requires recognizing violations as civic emergencies, demanding fidelity from leaders, and treating the Oath as a national obligation, not a formality.

A passive people cannot sustain a constitutional identity.

5. Institutions Must Reclaim Distributed Responsibility

Each branch must reinterpret its role through responsibility, not supremacy or deference. Congress must reassert its duty to resist unconstitutional acts. The Executive must practice restraint. The Judiciary must abandon the illusion of exclusive authority.

Shared responsibility is the architecture of constitutional identity.

6. 2026 as a Constitutional Turning Point

America250 is not merely a commemoration. It is the first national moment in generations with the potential to redefine who Americans are. The goal is not celebration but clarity — a renewed identity capable of sustaining governance and fidelity.

The Path Forward

America cannot rely on force, improvisation, or courts to navigate the next century. It must rebuild identity — honest, shared, and constitutional. Only then can governance stabilize and fidelity return.

Part VII — Why America Repeated the Mistakes of 1621 and How to Break the Cycle

by Darius A.  Lecointe, PhD, JD 

If the crisis of 2025 feels familiar, it is because the United States is reenacting the unresolved contradictions of 1621. America has repeated the same pattern for four centuries: identity confusion, improvised governance, fading fidelity, and rising force. Understanding why this happens is essential to ending the cycle.

1. America Never Resolved Its Foundational Identities

The three identities at Plymouth — Wampanoag, Separatist, and non-Separatist — were never reconciled. Instead: the Separatist story became national myth, the economic motives of the non-Separatists faded into the culture, and Wampanoag sovereignty was erased.

A nation that suppresses its origins repeats them. Our identity confusion comes from an identity myth built on omission.

2. We Inherited a Habit of Improvisation

The Mayflower Compact was a short-term solution treated as a founding moment. Americans learned to celebrate improvisation instead of seeing it as a warning. This habit resurfaced in: constitutional shortcuts, emergency powers, judicial overreach, and political improvisation replacing fidelity.

Improvisation became tradition.

3. We Confused Power With Responsibility

Early settlers equated authority with moral right. Modern America still does. We assume: elections grant broad power, institutions may act until stopped, and the Constitution matters only when courts intervene.

This is constitutional drift.

4. We Misunderstood the Constitution as a Tool, Not an Identity

For generations, the Constitution was taught as a rulebook or manual. But it describes who we are, not just what government does. Today’s disputes feel unwinnable because they are identity conflicts disguised as legal arguments.

5. We Entrusted Responsibility to the Wrong Branch

Judicial supremacy completed the pattern. Once Americans believed the Court defined meaning: citizens disengaged, Congress abandoned resistance, presidents stopped exercising restraint, and the Court became the focus of national desperation.

Responsibility shrank to one branch.

6. Breaking the Cycle Requires Returning to Identity

To stop repeating 1621, America must do what the early settlers could not: acknowledge competing identities, fuse them into a shared constitutional identity, restore the sequence identity → governance → fidelity → force, and return responsibility to all branches and the people.

The Lesson for 2025

America repeats the mistakes of 1621 because it never learned them. Breaking the cycle requires recovering the one thing the Constitution cannot supply on its own: a unified, honest national identity.

Part VI — Restoring Constitutional Responsibility: A Practical Path for 2025

by Darius A. Lecointe, PhD, JD 

If America’s constitutional crisis is a crisis of identity and responsibility, then the way forward must begin with recovering both. Judicial supremacy displaced the constitutional duties of citizens and institutions, but the solution is not a new doctrine. It is a return to the original design: shared responsibility at every level of national life.

1. Responsibility Begins With the Oath

The Oath is not ceremonial. It is the constitutional mechanism that binds officials to the identity of the people. Every officer — executive, legislative, judicial — has the same duty: protect the Constitution at all times, not only when “called upon.”

Reaffirming the meaning of the Oath is the first step toward restoring fidelity.

2. Congress Must Reclaim Its Duty

Congress has become reactive, waiting for courts to resolve violations. But the legislative branch was designed to defend the constitutional identity of the nation. Congress must: refuse to implement unconstitutional demands, assert its independent interpretive duty, and treat violations as identity threats, not partisan maneuvers.

A passive Congress is incompatible with constitutional life.

3. The Executive Must Relearn Its Limits

The Presidency has drifted into a posture of personal will. Restoring constitutional responsibility means returning to Washington’s model: lead within the Constitution, refuse authority not granted, and treat the Oath as a constraint, not an instrument of power.

Executive restraint is a form of fidelity.

4. The Judiciary Must Step Out of Supremacy

The Court must abandon the illusion that it alone defines the Constitution. Its proper role is to articulate, not to dominate. Fidelity demands: transparency about constitutional limits, rejection of unnecessary intervention, and recognition that responsibility is not exclusive.

A non-supreme Court strengthens the system.

5. Citizens Must Reenter the Constitutional Equation

For too long, Americans have acted as spectators of constitutional conflict. But constitutional identity belongs to the people. Citizens must: treat violations as civic emergencies, demand fidelity from representatives, and understand that the Constitution’s sovereignty depends on public responsibility.

The people are the first line of defense, not the last.

6. Institutions Must Remember the Sequence

Stability returns only when the constitutional sequence is honored:

Identity → Governance → Fidelity → Force

Today, the order is reversed. Restoring the sequence is not abstract. It requires daily reaffirmation of identity and active defense of constitutional norms.

The Lesson for 2025

The Constitution does not survive because it is enforced. It survives because the people and institutions bound by it choose fidelity over convenience.

Restoring constitutional responsibility is not optional. It is the only path out of identity drift and back into constitutional life.

Part V — How Judicial Supremacy Broke the Constitutional Sequence

by Darius A. Lecointe, PhD,  JD 

For most of American history, the Constitution corrected itself through the balance of identity, governance, and fidelity. But over time, the nation shifted from constitutional responsibility to judicial supremacy—the belief that the Court alone determines meaning. This shift broke the sequence of Constitutional Life and weakened the nation’s ability to self-correct.

1. The Founders Never Intended Judicial Supremacy

Nothing in 1787 gives the Court exclusive authority over constitutional meaning. Early practice confirms this:

i. Hayburn’s Case: judges refused to enforce an unconstitutional law without waiting for litigation.

ii. John Jay declined advisory opinions to preserve the Court’s role, not supremacy.

iii. All officers took the Oath—not only judges.

Responsibility was distributed.

2. Marbury Has Been Misread

Modern Americans treat Marbury as granting the Court final say. But Marshall’s point was simple: acts repugnant to the Constitution are void because the Constitution is sovereign — not the Court.

Judicial review was a consequence, not supremacy.

3. Supremacy Replaced Responsibility

Once people believed the Court alone guarded the Constitution:

i. citizens stopped acting as constitutional stewards,

ii. political branches abandoned their duty to refuse unconstitutional acts,

iii. and the Court became the center of national identity—an impossible burden.

4. Supremacy Created Paralysis

If only the Court can correct violations:

i. unconstitutional acts stand until challenged,

ii. crises escalate while institutions “wait for cases,”

iii. and the Constitution becomes a technical puzzle instead of an identity statement.

The early Republic acted immediately when fidelity was threatened. We no longer do.

5. The Cost in 2025

Today Americans:

i. accept unconstitutional claims until the Court intervenes,

ii. treat violations as partisan issues,

iii. and behave as if the Constitution is negotiable until litigated.

Supremacy has replaced citizenship.

6. The Lesson for 2025

The Constitution cannot restore itself through one branch. It requires shared responsibility — executive, legislative, judicial, and civic.

To recover stability, America must return to Marshall’s insight:

The Constitution is sovereign. The people are responsible. The Court is not the Constitution.

The Path Ahead

Until responsibility is restored, identity will fracture, fidelity will weaken, and force will dominate. Rejecting supremacy and restoring duty is essential for constitutional life.

Part IV — The Hydraulic Constitutional Force: How the Constitution Corrects Itself

 by Darius A. Lecointe, PhD, JD

The United States has survived repeated constitutional crises not because our institutions are strong, but because something deeper operates beneath them. I call it the Hydraulic Constitutional Force (HCF) — the natural, self-correcting mechanism built into constitutional systems. It appears whenever identity fractures, governance fails, or fidelity collapses. It is the Constitution’s way of restoring equilibrium, and istory has recorded it again and again.

1. The HCF Appears When Institutions Do Not

When institutions refuse to act, the HCF creates pressure they cannot ignore.

Hayburn’s Case showed judges stepping outside procedure to warn the President that a statute violated the Constitution. They did not “wait for a case” because fidelity required immediate action. The Court yielded to the Constitution’s self-correcting force.

Similarly, in Trump v. Thompson, the D.C. Circuit described how their ruling was responsive to this self-correcting force.

2. The HCF Exposes Identity Drift

The force emerges most visibly when Americans behave as though they are no longer bound by a shared identity.

Identity drift produces conflict, and conflict triggers self-correction.

2025 is seeing the same pattern. Competing identities are placing pressure on institutions that can no longer ignore the imbalance.

3. The HCF Limits Human Will

The Constitution was built to resist domination by individual will — whether of a president, a court, or a faction. The HCF activates whenever will threatens identity.

This is why Marbury’s principle matters: acts repugnant to the Constitution are void because the Constitution is sovereign, not the actors within it.

The HCF ensures that human will cannot permanently override constitutional identity.

4. The HCF Does Not Prevent Crisis — It Prevents Collapse

Contrary to popular belief, the Constitution is not designed to prevent crisis. It is designed to ensure crisis does not become destruction.

The HCF intervenes through: public reaction, institutional pushback, structural limits, and moments where the system simply refuses to bend further.

We see this now in the growing rejection of judicial supremacy, the renewed debate over the Oath, and the public recognition that constitutional violations signal identity change.

America’s challenge is to respond before the pressure becomes force.

The Path Forward

If we ignore identity, the HCF will continue to push through conflict and instability.

If we recover identity, the system will stabilize without coercion.

The choice in 2025 is whether we align with the force — or resist it until it acts on us.