Just Enforce the Constitution We Have

As our once republic swirls down the drain of despotism, a common call at FR to restore freedom is to “just enforce the constitution we have.” In a perfect world of cuddly puppies and chocolate rivers, we could live in unspoiled freedom and happiness if we only enforced the written constitution.

The problem is that no nation ever was, nor will ever be, composed of saints. If men were saints, government wouldn’t be necessary. If that sounds familiar, it should. After years of study on the nature of government in general, and republics in particular, James Madison and other framers rediscovered a maxim that was largely forgotten by 1913, and is sadly forgotten today by most at FreeRepublic.

That is, the structure of government is all important. Insofar as supporting or hindering freedom and happiness, governmental structure trumps the significance of virtue or licentiousness of the people.

Does the constitution of 1787 reflect unbridled confidence in virtue? Of course not. If the framers supposed only moral men would go into government, then a simple republican structure like that of the ancient city states, consisting of a popularly elected, single house legislature would be all that was needed. This fantasy legislature composed of upright men would issue laws that a moral populace would readily agree to and support.

Rather than assume a nation of angels, the constitution assumed a nation of public rogues.

This isn’t to be confused with private behavior, for even the worst monsters in history often had stable and loving families. Don’t doubt that Nancy Pelosi or even the loathsome Van Jones are not devoted parents and spouses. Domestically, they may be model spouses and parents. As holders of any public trust, they are demons.

Far from embracing simplicity or counting on public virtue, the constitution set up a complex system designed to prevent the accumulation of legislative, executive, judicial powers in one, few, or many men. That should sound familiar as well, and if a little time in rational thought is spent on it, it should be clear that is not the system we live under today.

Our government is in rapid transition for the worse. Power increasingly concentrates in the executive branch. Obama’s practical authority is limited only by what he thinks he can politically get away with.

As if distant history was not proof enough, our recent electoral experience should suffice. For years we sent dozens of Tea Party conservatives to congress. How many went wobbly or full rino? This isn’t to say we shouldn’t seek out the best among us. It means the careful selection of reps is insufficient to save our sinking republic.

Fortunately, the framers provided an out, a constitutional and almost extra-congressional route to restore the all-important structure of government necessary to maintain a FreeRepublic.

I obviously read it. I don't agree. You did not make your case because you start from the unfounded assumption that it matters what is written down either in the current Constitution or some future version. I do not agree with that assumption - not matter how much it might matter to you and to me, it does not matter to the political class.

My own premise - based on what has obviously happened in the last 60 years - is that the socialists do not care what is written down. If we can fix *that* problem, then what's currently written is good enough. Abiding by the 10th Amendment in particular would fix nearly all the problems that people want a new Constitution for.

I also disagree with your assumption that those who are broadly called conservative would somehow control the new Constitution. I think the political class would fight that very hard. And despite the number of politicians with 'R' after their name, they are virtually all in favor of a bigger government. This includes the state legislatures who would presumably approve the new Constitution if Congress would not.

Since there is no guarantee - and a host of empirical data against it - that a new Constitution would 1) be observed by the political class, or 2) have a high likelihood of embodying conservative principles, and there is a high risk that instead we would see things like the 2nd Amendment written out of the new Constitution, I think an Article V convention is all risk with no real potential for reward. It's not an absolute necessity. It's an absolute recipe for disaster.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.