To: listenhillary
Rest of article that my cut and paste missed! Sorry!
it may choose to claim, while the rights not given to the people
in the Constitution are reserved to the federal government to give or withhold, and the states may be progressively stripped of
their original powers.
What it comes to is that we dont really have an operative Constitution anymore. The federal government defines its own
powers day by day. Its limited not by the list of its powers in the Constitution, but by whatever it can get away with politically.
Just as the president can now send troops abroad to fight without a declaration of war, Congress can pass a national health
care program without a constitutional delegation of power. The only restraint left is political opposition.
If you suspect Im overstating the change from our original principles, I give you the late Justice Hugo Black. In a 1965 case
called Griswold v. Connecticut, the Court struck down a law forbidding the sale of contraceptives on grounds that it violated a
right of privacy. (This supposed right, of course, became the basis for the Courts even more radical 1973 ruling in Roe v.
Wade, but thats another story.) Justice Black dissented in the Griswold case on the following ground: I like my privacy as
well as the next [man], he wrote, but I am nevertheless compelled to admit that government has a right to invade it unless
prohibited by some specific constitutional provision. What a hopelessly muddled and really sinister misconception of the
relation between the individual and the state: government has a right to invade our privacy, unless prohibited by the Constitution.
You dont have to share the Courts twisted view of the right of privacy in order to be shocked that one of its members takes
this view of the right of government to invade privacy.
It gets crazier. In 1993 the Court handed down one of the most bizarre decisions of all time. For two decades, enemies of legal
abortion had been supporting Republican candidates in the hope of filling the Court with appointees who would review Roe v.
Wade. In Planned Parenthood v. Casey, the Court finally did so. But even with eight Republican appointees on the Court, the
result was not what the conservatives had hoped for. The Court reaffirmed Roe.
Its reasoning was amazing. A plurality opinion a majority of the five-justice majority in the case admitted that the Courts
previous ruling in Roe might be logically and historically vulnerable. But it held that the paramount consideration was that the
Court be consistent, and not appear to be yielding to public pressure, lest it lose the respect of the public. Therefore the Court
allowed Roe to stand.
Among many things that might be said about this ruling, the most basic is this: The Court in effect declared itself a third party to
the controversy, and then, setting aside the merits of the two principals claims, ruled in its own interest! It was as if the referee
in a prizefight had declared himself the winner. Cynics had always suspected that the Court did not forget its self-interest in its
decisions, but they never expected to hear it say so.
The three justices who signed that opinion evidently didnt realize what they were saying. A distinguished veteran
Court-watcher (who approved of Roe, by the way) told me he had never seen anything like it. The Court was actually telling us
that it put its own welfare ahead of the merits of the arguments before it. In its confusion, it was blurting out the truth.
But by then very few Americans could even remember the original constitutional plan. The original plan was as Madison and
Tocqueville described it: State government was to be the rule, federal government the exception. The states powers were to
be numerous and indefinite, federal powers few and defined. This is a matter not only of history, but of iron logic: the
Constitution doesnt make sense when read any other way. As Madison asked, why bother listing particular federal powers
unless unlisted powers are withheld?
The unchecked federal government has not only overflowed its banks; it has even created its own economy. Thanks to its
exercise of myriad unwarranted powers, it can claim tens of millions of dependents, at least part of whose income is due to the
abuse of the taxing and spending powers for their benefit: government employees, retirees, farmers, contractors, teachers,
artists, even soldiers. Large numbers of these people are paid much more than their market value because the taxpayer is
forced to subsidize them. By the same token, most taxpayers would instantly be better off if the federal government simply
ceased to exist or if it suddenly returned to its constitutional functions.
Can we restore the Constitution and recover our freedom? I have no doubt that we can. Like all great reforms, it will take an
intelligent, determined effort by many people. I dont want to sow false optimism.
But the time is ripe for a constitutional counterrevolution. Discontent with the ruling system, as the 1992 Perot vote showed, is
deep and widespread among several classes of people: Christians, conservatives, gun owners, taxpayers, and simple believers
in honest government all have their reasons. The rulers lack legitimacy and dont believe in their own power strongly enough to
defend it.
The beauty of it is that the people dont have to invent a new system of government in order to get rid of this one. They only
have to restore the one described in the Constitution the system our government already professes to be upholding. Taken
seriously, the Constitution would pose a serious threat to our form of government.
And for just that reason, the ruling parties will be finished as soon as the American people rediscover and awaken their dormant
Constitution.
To: listenhillary
bttt
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson