Posted on 10/12/2009 9:41:55 PM PDT by Huck
Conservatives romantically cling to the Constitution despite all the evidence amassed over 200 years of experience. They laud the Federalist papers, those essays that, when scrutinized coldly and without romantic attachment, reveal themselves to be monuments to error and miscalculation--if not worse.
As stated in the header of this essay, by 1819, some of the dire predictions of the anti-federalists had already come to pass. Chief Justice Marshall--appointed by George Washington---in 1819 interpreted the "Commerce Clause" in broad terms, paving the way for an unrestrained federal leviathan. This same Marshall had some 15 years earlier declared the Supreme Court the final decider and interpreter of Constitutionality.
The anti-federalists were right. They were right about the federal power to tax. About the dangers of the federal judiciary. About the impossibly broad language of "all laws necessary and proper", "promote the general welfare", etc. They were right that what the Constitution created was a federal beast that would obliterate the power of the states, lord over every detail of life, and lead to civil war.
The point I'm trying to make is that the conservative movement, to the extent that it wishes to "return to the Constitution" and "founding principles" is on a fool's errand. Not simply because the battle to keep the national government contained was lost long ago, but because the true founding principles, the Spirit of 76, LOST when the Constitution was ratified.
I don't know if it's possible for conservatives to give up their romance with the Constitution, with the "founding fathers." Probably not. As so here we are, playing around at the margins.
I'll try to post more essays from the time of the founding that demonstrate how well understood the perils of the national government were to those who OPPOSED it at the time. George Mason and Patrick Henry are heros. Madison, Hamilton, and the rest of the Constitutional Convention, truth be told, are the GOATS.
todays government is removing the liberty word.
I think they also presumed that the people we elected would care about preserving the nation...never presume anything
Rich men can live easy under any government, be it ever so tyrannical. They come in for a great share of the tyranny, because they are the ministers of tyrants, and always engross the places of honor and profit, while the greater part of the common people are led by the nose, and played about by these very men, for the destruction of themselves and their class.
Be wise, be virtuous, and catch the precious moment as it passes, to refuse this newfangled federal government, and extricate yourselves and posterity from tyranny, oppression, aristocratical or monarchical government. . . .
A FARMER AND PLANTER
“If [the Peoples’ representatives] are sufficiently numerous to be well informed of the circumstances, . . . and have a proper regard for the people, [the People] will be secure.”
And if the People’s representatives are mostly slime?
He was right. The Constitution was a big mistake.
In so extensive a republic, the great officers of government would soon
become above the controul of the people, and abuse their power to the
purpose of aggrandizing themselves, and oppressing them. The trust committed
to the executive offices, in a country of the extent of the United-States,
must be various and of magnitude. The command of all the troops and navy of
the republic, the appointment of officers, the power of pardoning offences,
the collecting of all the public revenues, and the power of expending them,
with a number of other powers, must be lodged and exercised in every state,
in the hands of a few. When these are attended with great honor and
emolument, as they always will be in large states, so as greatly to interest
men to pursue them, and to be proper objects for ambitious and designing
men, such men will be ever restless in their pursuit after them. They will
use the power, when they have acquired it, to the purposes of gratifying
their own interest and ambition, and it is scarcely possible, in a very
large republic, to call them to account for their misconduct, or to prevent
their abuse of power.
Brutus, 18 October 1787
Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. The original Constitution held against the onslaught until it was sabotaged by a combination of Supreme Court interpretation and the 14th Amendment. It took that much (actually unratified and fraudulent) power to cobble together an effective neutralization of the Constitution, and even then, and after a hundred years of twisting and lying, the entirety of the fraud still hangs on the single thread of "presumption."
The Founders knew the evil they were up against, and warned that the Constitution of Negative Rights would have to be deeply understood in order to be adequately defended. Which is why the Left has invaded academia, to destroy the education necessary for a free people to be able to defend their freedom. But taken at face value, the original Constitution is still a monstrously strong bulwark against tyranny, and has not been defeated - only buried by lies and forceably ignored by a deviously sabotaged ignorant citizenry.
None of which matters in the least, because the perversion DID happen. The previous poster is correct---the Anti-Federalists WERE right, and in such detail that the accuracy of the predictions are frightening.
Whether something "matters" or not is subject to reflections against a standard. The Founders endeavored not only to create a "country," but also a mechanism which would defeat the attacks of evil.
One could say, if the attacks of evil were successful, then the Founders failed. But no one can be held to a standard higher than that which they can address. The Founders sealed the breach from their standpoint. It took an addition to the Constitution - the 14th Amendment - plus a Supreme Court ruling, to establish the merest thread upon which treason against the Founders could be maintained. The success of that extraordinary illegitimate effort is not their fault.
The question, therefore, that we are left with, is not whether we can understand what has been done. Very brave and even brilliant people have exposed the deceit. But what now? Who will step forward - and with what support? The usurpers of the Constitution are not fools - they smash certainty, destroy education, fill millions of ears with lies, and reward cowardice. So the endgame is already thrown and the traitors fill their goblets with wine and vomit their laughter in glee.
The question is, who will resist this perverse, demonic hell with the truth?
The Supreme Court that THEY created. When I consider that the first "sabotage" by the Supreme Court took place in 1803, and was authored by one of the framers--John Marshall--I have difficulty writing it off as a mulligan.
The Founders knew the evil they were up against, and warned that the Constitution of Negative Rights would have to be deeply understood in order to be adequately defended.
You have to step outside of it for a minute. Seriously. I realize this is just an intellectual exercise at this point, but what is at issue in my mind is, why create a strong national government? What the framers were "up against" was the Frankenstein monster THEY CREATED.
They weren't even authorized to create it. They were supposed to merely fix the Articles of Confederation. There was no need for what they created. They went too far.
Every defender of the Constitution I encounter acknowledges it hasn't worked, but comes back with some form of what I'll call the Scooby Doo defense--it would have worked if it hadn't been for....the people?
No. You can't say a gubmint designed to be run by people was fine except for the people. They created too powerful a government. They made awful errors that were known at the time! Interstate commerce, necessary and proper, general welfare, etc. The opponents of the Constitution warned of the folly and absolute power that would stem from those phrases. It's not as if it was unknown at the time.
The fact that another point of view existed contemporaneously and was denied says it "is" their fault. They were too optimistic. That the Anti-Federalists description of what the downfall would be is so uncannily accurate proves which of the two views got it rignt.
"So the endgame is already thrown and the traitors fill their goblets with wine and vomit their laughter in glee."
Eventually, the socialists will carry things too far, and enough people WILL wake up to the danger.
"The question is, who will resist this perverse, demonic hell with the truth?"
I suspect that the "triggering event" (no pun intended) this time around will be the same as the last time---an attempt by the central government to disarm the people. The only question will be where the next "Lexington and Concord" will take place. All those folks stockpiling guns and ammo are voting "nay".
That was the first and biggest mistake. They took a conferation of "countries", and turned it into one big Fedzilla. They are wholly to blame for it. They weren't even authorized to do so. They were merely supposed to make alterations to the existing confederation of states.
One could say, if the attacks of evil were successful, then the Founders failed.
The results are in.
It took an addition to the Constitution - the 14th Amendment - plus a Supreme Court ruling, to establish the merest thread upon which treason against the Founders could be maintained. The success of that extraordinary illegitimate effort is not their fault.
The Marshall court--the first Supreme Court--appointed by Washington, began the mischief. By the time of McCulloch v Maryland in 1816 we were already screwed. The seeds had already been sewn. And since it is the framers who created the SCOTUS, they are most definitely at fault. There was no need for a national government with supreme power residing in an unelected group of judges. They created it. They own it.
The question, therefore, that we are left with, is not whether we can understand what has been done. Very brave and even brilliant people have exposed the deceit. But what now? Who will step forward - and with what support?
Ideally, the step forward is to abandon the Constitution and national government. In reality, the step forward will be to continue loping towards total statism under the yoke of a virtually limitless national government.
If there’s shooting involved, Fedzilla wins. The correct way to get out from under Fedzilla is for states to become “breakaway republics.” That’s how it has to be framed. Appeal to foreign nations for help and support. Publish a declaration of independence. I believe it could be done without firing a shot. But I don’t think the people in any state are ready for it.
Got news! Back in the day, the British Empire WAS "Fedzilla". Sure, a peaceful split would be better, but "if push comes to shove". But right now, no, sufficient people are not "ready for it". We'll see in 2010. Given the open Marxism of pretty much all of Obama's appointees, I suspect that more and more people are getting a clue.
Your theory of the complete failure of the Constitution is unique, to say the least. It's hard to imagine being able to look at the last 230+ years of world history and call the United States a complete failure, but hey, whatever floats your boat.
And as far at the Supreme Court being unnecessary, once again, there is arguing that it has overstepped it's bounds (with which I agree) and arguing that it's original purpose was unnecessary, which I have to dismiss for cause. What exactly would you have used in it's stead for it's original purpose?
Finally, your call to not only abandon the Constitution, but also national government, is naive beyond belief. Only a national government provides the coordinated power necessary to survive against other... national governments. It's like arguing against guns by quoting all of their inherent dangers, without acknowledging the fact that criminals use guns. Just as the criminals are the real problem, so are other nation-states, who will take over your little confluences of non-national people unprotected by either size or a fundamental guiding doctrine of negative rights to curb their own little fiefdoms.
The Founders didn't "authorize" themselves - they submitted their work to the States for ratification. And the problem they faced was how to cripple the government's power against the people as much as possible while still enabling it against foreign national threats. In the entire known history of the world, their creation of a doctrine of negative rights has proven to be breathtakingly brilliant and successful, but even they warned that no government can survive the moral corruption and ignorance of it's people - it's simply not within the range of any government to prevent that.
But arguing for the destruction of national government altogether is an equally untenable, and grossly unrealistic, counter-response to the abiding threat of totalitarian invasion (under whatever name).
When I refer to a “national” government, I mean in contrast to a truly federal government. I grant we as a Union require a shared governmental structure. My point is that it needn’t have been a national system with so much power.
The Anti-Federalists were dead-on, I agree, but compromise with the Federalists was a necessary evil in order to create a nation, which was required for sheer size. It is simply inescapable that the country was created not only to secure internal rights, but also be able to effectively defend itself from enormously powerful foreign threats. It was an abiding pressure that never allowed the full acceptance of the Anti-Federalist freedoms, and that has plagued the country since it's inception.
But since the Anti-Federalist negative rights are truly unique in the world, I believe the Federalist restrictions are secondary to them in estimation. In other words, the success of the country is that negative rights have been able to exist at all, not that they've been under attack by Federalist expansion (which, I think, was always a given).
I believe its "original purpose" was faulty. Some excerpts on the subject from AntiFederalist No. 81 (the existance of these documents is important, because it obliterates this notion that the abuses we have seen since the adoption of The Constitution were somehow unforseen or unimaginable to the founders.)
Here you go:
Perhaps the judicial power will not be able, by direct and positive decrees, ever to direct the legislature, because it is not easy to conceive how a question can be brought before them in a course of legal discussion, in which they can give a decision, declaring, that the legislature have certain powers which they have not exercised, and which, in consequence of the determination of the judges, they will be bound to exercise. But it is easy to see, that in their adjudication they may establish certain principles, which being received by the legislature will enlarge the sphere of their power beyond all bounds.
snip
From these observations it appears, that the judgment of the judicial, on the constitution, will become the rule to guide the legislature in their construction of their powers. What the principles are, which the courts will adopt, it is impossible for us to say. But taking up the powers as I have explained them in my last number, which they will possess under this clause, it is not difficult to see, that they may, and probably will, be very liberal ones. We have seen, that they will be authorized to give the constitution a construction according to its spirit and reason, and not to confine themselves to its letter.
snip
If it be further considered, that this constitution, if it is ratified, will not be a compact entered into by states, in their corporate capacities, but an agreement of the people of the United States as one great body politic, no doubt can remain but that the great end of the constitution, if it is to be collected from the preamble, in which its end is declared, is to constitute a government which is to extend to every case for which any government is instituted, whether external or internal. The courts, therefore, will establish this as a principle in expounding the constitution, and will give every part of it such an explanation as will give latitude to every department under it, to take cognizance of every matter, not only that affects the general and national concerns of the union, but also of such as relate to the administration of private justice, and to regulating the internal and local affairs of the different parts.
snip
As it sets out in the preamble with this declared intention, so it proceeds in the different parts with the same idea. Any person, who will peruse the 5th section with attention, in which most of the powers are enumerated, will perceive that they either expressly or by implication extend to almost every thing about which any legislative power can be employed. If this equitable mode of construction is applied to this part of the constitution, nothing can stand before it. This will certainly give the first clause in that article a construction which I confess I think the most natural and grammatical one, to authorise the Congress to do any thing which in their judgment will tend to provide for the general welfare, and this amounts to the same thing as general and unlimited powers of legislation in all cases.
snip
It is obvious that these courts will have authority to decide upon the validity of the laws of any of the states, in all cases where they come in question before them. Where the constitution gives the general government exclusive jurisdiction, they will adjudge all laws made by the states, in such cases, void ab inilio. Where the constitution gives them concurrent jurisdiction, the laws of the United States must prevail, because they are the supreme law. In such cases, therefore, the laws of the state legislatures must be repealed, restricted, or so construed, as to give full effect to the laws of the union on the same subject. From these remarks it is easy to see, that in proportion as the general government acquires power and jurisdiction, by the liberal construction which the judges may give the constitution, those of the states will lose their rights, until they become so trifling and unimportant, as not to be worth having.
snip
That's enough to chew on for now. You see, the SCOTUS is tied to the Constitution that created it, and together, it was so amazingly clear to see at the time for those with eyes to see, they form centralized TYRANNY.
I'm so sick of all this talk of the framers' intent. Intentions and a dollar get you a cup of coffee. Look at what they created. And don't tell me "if only it had been followed." Look at the criticisms from the time it was adopted. It was all out there.
Nice to encounter freepers who understand the term. Have you heard Rush Limbaugh and others (some here) braying on about Obama's use of the phrase, completely misunderstanding its meaning? True, Obama was lamenting that we only have negative rights in our Constitution (not union thug style rights), but they thought he meant "negative" as in "bad." It was embarrassing to witness.
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.