Cokie Roberts: Abandon the Constitution to Save it?

texas.tenthamendmentcenter.com ^ | 4-12-10 | Brian Roberts

[Pantera]

Abandon the Constitution to Save it?

12. Apr, 2010  Written by: Brian Roberts

Based on ideas from Cokie Roberts’ recent article found here, it is hard to draw any conclusion other than she prefers a dictatorship of the federal government to the balance of power guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution.

Obamacare has been signed into law. However, there are a number of other checks and balances built into the Constitution that are specifically designed to protect the states and ultimately “we the people” from unconstitutional laws. Unconstitutional laws would include any law passed by the federal legislature that was not specifically enumerated in the Constitution. States have authority to make laws on all of the other matters, this is guaranteed by the 10^th amendment.

Cokie’s article seems to suggest that “we the people” simply ignore these other checks because she is afraid that it might lead to a civil war. Ironically, her “solution” to avoid civil war is actually the most likely spark to ignite it, here’s why.

From the first paragraph: “It’s also easy… to view today’s nullification battle over health care less as a frivolous political game and more as a serious threat to the Constitution.” In effect she is saying “We must abandon the Constitution to save the Constitution”. This kind of circular thinking is as dangerous to freedom as G.W. Bush’s declaration that “we must abandon the free market to save the free market”. I think what actually concerns her must be that state sovereignty is a “serious threat to absolute federal power”. Hint: that’s the way it is supposed to be.

Her article continues: “The attorneys general of 14 states have filed suit challenging the health care law because, they argue, the Constitution does not authorize the federal government to require the purchase of health insurance.”

This is true, and this is an appeal to the judicial branch of the federal government. What is the problem? Does Cokie really want to eliminate the federal court’s ability to strike down unconstitutional laws? I hope not, that might lead to unchecked executive power.

The next sentence states: “Virginia, acting in direct defiance of federal law, passed a measure making mandated health insurance illegal.”

This is partially true. Virginia is actually indicating that they believe the health care law to be unconstitutional and they have passed state legislation that positions the power of the state government between the federal government and the citizens of Virginia. This is a legal and proper role of state governments; if the federal government steps outside it’s enumerated powers, it is the duty of the state to respond accordingly. Is Cokie hinting that the second tier of balanced power should be abandoned too? I hope not, that would lead to fully centralized power.

Consider Thomas Jefferson’s sentiments about this very situation:

“I am for preserving to the States the powers not yielded by them to the Union, and to the legislature of the Union its constitutional share in the division of powers; and I am not for transferring all the powers of the States to the general government, nor all those of that government to the Executive branch.”

Now, the article’s proposed solution: “It’s an election, after all, that defused that first challenge to federal authority. Jefferson won the presidency and simply allowed the Alien and Sedition Acts to expire.”

This proposed solution eliminates the use of the checks and balances in the Constitution and quite literally promotes a dictatorship of the federal government. I suppose she believes that we can always vote out any dictator that centralizes too much power by passing unconstitutional laws. (wink, wink)

Toward the end this statement is made: “It’s hard to imagine what would happen politically if the Supreme Court sided with some states against Congress. The already severely frayed fabric of government would certainly be further torn apart. It’s far better to leave the health care debate in the arena of electoral politics — and for the losers to accept defeat. That’s the essence of democracy.”

Again, the suggestion is made to just accept the federal government’s decree even if unconstitutional. The thing that struck me here though was the “essence of democracy” concept. That may be how a democracy works, but that’s not how a Constitutional Republic works.

And one final thought, the justification for tossing the Constitution aside is based on a perceived fear of civil war. I would suggest to Cokie that she is confusing the symptom with the disease. The disease is a federal government that is passing unconstitutional laws without regards for life, liberty and property. Instead, she focuses on the response, which is merely a symptom of the disease. The response of course is a dedicated effort by “we the people” in conjunction with state governments to lawfully and constitutionally eliminate a major threat to liberty…  through adherence to the Constitution.

Bottom line: The Constitution and decentralized power limit the risk of civil war; centralized power in the federal government increases the risk. Freedom from unconstitutional laws leads to peace, servitude under coercive mandates does not.

Cokie, you’re cheering for the wrong team.

[Sloth]

It's far better to leave the health care debate in the arena of electoral politics — and for the losers to accept defeat. That's the essence of democracy.

I'm sure they have the same feelings about abortion...

[grumpygresh]

“Excuse me. Cokie is my friend’s cousin, not my friend. And even if that were so, who are you to tell me who I can associate with? Let the leftists have political purity tests. I won’t stand for it. In other words, butt out of my personal life. Who are you? A politician?”

I’m truly sorry to have offended you and I would never think of telling you who your friends should be. Of course, anyone is free to associate with anyone else and I am glad that you seem to be proud to have some sort of acquaintance or personal knowledge of a famous person like Cokie Roberts.

However, my point only is that that when engaging in political activities in times such as these, it is wise to choose your friends carefully. And no, I am not a decidedly not a politician. If I were, I would probably be trying to make friends with everyone on both sides of the aisle and the msm.

[beandog]

If you don’t want your personal life discussed, don’t bring it out on a public forum.

You sound like Tom Coburn saying that Nancy Pelosi is a “nice” person. I don’t care how “nice” they are, I care what they are trying to do to the country.

[Still Thinking]

The already severely frayed fabric of government would certainly be further torn apart. It’s far better to leave the health care debate in the arena of electoral politics — and for the losers to accept defeat. That’s the essence of democracy.

Yes, that always seems to be the plan when THEY win. When the people who can read the Constitution win, well, Diebold cheated, or the President was "selected, not elected" or whatever. THEY never just go away after an electoral loss, and THAT's when the Constitution isn't even being shredded.

[MrB]

Here, Kookie,

I have a solution to your fears of civil war -

if a state and its people decide to “opt out” of a program that the people of that state do not want to participate in,

just “let” them.

[MrB]

You can’t “win” an original intent argument with a lib.
Their worldview is based on the idea that those alive today
take precedent over anything written or decided in the past.

[MrB]

Only when they can use the Constitution to advance Marxism do they pretend to honor it.

[Still Thinking]

Well, my brain is alive and working today, whereas hers is obviously dead or sleeping, so according to their rules, mine takes precedence.

[rlmorel]

Exactly. And for liberals, history ends five minutes ago.

If even then.

[Arrowhead1952]

Hey Cokie, if brains were hog excrement, you wouldn’t even emit a smell.

[D1X1E]

I have a solution to your fears of civil war - if a state and its people decide to “opt out” of a program that the people of that state do not want to participate in, just “let” them

Makes too much sense.
Doesnt allow for the libs need to control others.
Hence Kooky Cokie will never go for it.

[MrB]

Doesnt allow for the libs need to control others.

I'm getting more incite from Sowell's "Intellectuals and Society". I used to think it was about control with elitist libs. I'm starting to move away from even THAT viewpoint. "Control" is an external concept, control over others.

What elitist libs are after is how they feel about THEMSELVES. It's all narcissism to them. Allowing others to make their own decisions provides no means by which elitist libs can feel good about themselves. That's the key.

[D1X1E]

I used to think it was about control with elitist libs. I'm starting to move away from even THAT viewpoint. "Control" is an external concept, control over others. What elitist libs are after is how they feel about THEMSELVES. It's all narcissism to them. Allowing others to make their own decisions provides no means by which elitist libs can feel good about themselves.

hmmm makes some sense. I never did understand the big appeal of control. Have enough to do attending to my own business let alone anyone elses. But yes, the feeling better about themselves could enter into it. Doing something good for others could generate that same feeling and benefit someone else as well but the inherent selfishness of narcissism resists that idea I guess.

[facedown]

Cokie, you’re cheering for the wrong team.

But that's because it's her team.

[MNJohnnie]

Glad to see people dismantling this ignorant drivel from Roberts. When I read her original piece I was stunned by how completely divorced from all fact and reason her argument was.

[spintreebob]

Watch for a concerted campaign to re-define “judicial activism”.

A judge who uses the Constitution to reverse any action of the legislative brance, or the executive branch, or the regulatory branch, or the Fed Reserve branch ... that judge will be labeled a “judicial activist”.

And how many of you knew we now have so many branches?

[GAB-1955]

Then vote the people out. You have the power.