Posted on 11/23/2001 9:21:37 PM PST by ouroboros
Once, before appearing on a TV talk show, I was told I must not advocate the violent overthrow of the U.S. Government. I hadnt actually been planning to foment revolution, but this warning gave me an idea: "May I advocate the violent restoration of the Constitution?" I got no answer.
Some people think Im a "purist," or even a "fundamentalist," for harping on the Constitution. Actually, its just the opposite. Im willing to settle for the Constitution as a tolerable compromise. Really principled people, such as Lysander Spooner, the late, great Murray Rothbard, and a number of my living friends, consider the Constitution itself tyrannical, endowing the Federal Government with far too much power. (Dont tell the children, but so did Patrick Henry.)
These are the real purists, and I honor them. My only point is that even if theyre right, returning to the Constitution to a government strictly limited to its few enumerated powers would be a huge improvement over the kind of government we have now. At this point Id gratefully settle for that. I dont ask much.
All I ask, really, is that our rulers, alias elected representatives, do that which they swear before Almighty God, staking their immortal souls on the promise, that they will do: uphold said Constitution. I think its actually rather patriotic and even charitable of me to hope that our rulers will stop damning themselves. But this seems to make me some sort of utopian. Who ever heard of a politician going to heaven?
These gents (all right, there are a few ladies among them) think an oath of office is something to be taken as lightly as, say, a wedding vow. They probably felt a deeper sense of obligation when they took their college fraternity pledges. Only one member of Congress seems to read the Constitution and vote against proposed laws on grounds that they lack constitutional authorization: the Texas Republican Ron Paul. And hes considered a bit of a crank even by his own party. Whenever I read that the House has approved something by a 434-to-1 vote, I check to see if the 1 is Ron Paul. It usually is.
Of course the government has long since decided that the Constitution must be interpreted with a certain latitude, which always means letting the government stretch its own powers as far as it pleases. This is the familiar idea that the Constitution is a "living document," which is to say, a dead letter. How can it be "living" if its mere putty in the hands of the powerful? Really living things resist manipulation.
The Constitution is supposed to control the government, not vice versa. James Madison noted that the unwritten British Constitution could be changed at any time by a simple act of Parliament. Our Constitution, he said, would be better because it was an act of the people remember "We the People"? and would be "unalterable by the government." Any amendment would require very broad popular support.
But today We the People wait for the government often meaning five members of the U.S. Supreme Court to decide what the Constitution is going to mean. After all, theyre the experts. We the People are only ... people.
And We the People dont protest, dont even notice any incongruity, when were assured that this rank elitism is "democracy" and "self-government." We nod solemnly when we should be issuing a hearty horselaugh.
The current war is a good example. An emergency results from the governments abuse of its powers, so the government claims new powers in order to cope with the emergency. And if you dont support these claims, youre unpatriotic; if you think the governments foreign policy helped create this mess, youre "blaming America first."
In other words, we are expected to equate an unconstitutional government with the Constitution! Logic, anyone? Tyranny doesnt have to mean a grumpy dictator with a funny mustache; it can be exercised by pleasant guys who shave and smile. Its essence is lawless government government that makes countless laws because it recognizes no law above itself.
November 24, 2001
Joe Sobran is a nationally syndicated columnist. He also writes "Washington Watch" for The Wanderer, a weekly Catholic newspaper, and edits SOBRAN'S, a monthly newsletter of his essays and columns.
He invites you to try his new collection of aphorisms, "Anything Called a 'Program' Is Unconstitutional: Confessions of a Reactionary Utopian." You can get a free copy by subscribing or renewing your subscription to Sobran's. Just call 800-513-5053, or see his website, www.sobran.com. (He's still available for speaking engagements too.)
Copyright (c) 2001 by Griffin Internet Syndicate. All rights reserved.
They envision a final result in which they themselves will have no need for politicians and will hold lifelong positions of pure power, without any need for elections or any other means of maintaining the pretense that they only want the best for their subjects.
OB, I would say "more perfect" compromise. There is NO form of government available that better gives US equal protection from the rabid anarchists, and the rabid socialists, of which few at either end WOULD govern ALL to "their" "standards". "The More Perfect Compromise". Peace and love, George.
The Constitution will be restored...by peaceful means if possible.
If peaceful means don't work...well there is always the lesson of 1776.
redrock
. . . and when, exactly, was that? 1954 was the last time that happened, even nominally. And the Republican Party of 1954 was loaded--even more than now, by far--with RINO types. Since then the high water mark was Reagan's "effective control" of the House and outright--albeit not filibuster-proof--control of the Senate. In contradistinction JFK, LBJ, JC, and--for 2 years--WJC all had outright control of the House and the Senate.
On the larger point about restoration of the Constitution, I would note that nothing the FCC does would pass constitutional muster if applied to book, magazine, or newspaper publishing. If it be claimed that the First Amendment applies to broadcasting, why then I suppose that I don't need a license to broadcast any more than I do to print.
The reason it was decided that they would enjoy lifetime appoints is so their view of the Constitution would not be enslaved by the whims of the electorate.
Unfortunately, the Founders got it wrong.
A Gramscian collaborator perhaps? A Frankfurtian dupe?
PATRIOTS are not "Revolutionaries" trying to overthrow the government of the United States.
PATRIOTS are "Counter-Revolutionaries" trying to prevent the government of the United States from overthrowing the Constitution of the United States. - Unknown Author
"Such a government is incompatible with the genius of republicanism. There will be no checks, no real balances, in this government. What can avail your specious, imaginary balances, your rope-dancing, chain-rattling, ridiculous ideal checks and contrivances?...It is on a supposition that your American governors shall be honest that all the good qualities of this government are founded; but its defective and imperfect construction puts it in their power to perpetrate the worst of mischiefs should they be bad men; and, sir, would not all the world blame our distracted folly in resting our rights upon the contingency of our rulers being good or bad? Show me that age and country where the rights and liberties of the people were placed on the sole chance of their rulers being good men without a consequent loss of liberty! I say that the loss of that dearest privilege has ever followed, with absolute certainty, every such mad attempt."
Speaking against the adoption of the Constitution,Virginia Convention, June 5, 1788
Most prophetic! Personally, I'm with Sobran, Ron Paul and P. Henry.
Brigadier
I agree. Bump.
When Congress was drafting the 10th Amendment there was great debate over whether the federal government should be restricted to the "powers expressly delegated" under the Constitution, or just the "powers delegated." The first version was that of the Articles of Confederation, and it was rejected because it was felt that a change in the Constitution would be needed every time the federal government wanted to pass a law to fulfill its mandates, if that law was slightly different from previous laws. The argument was that the power to carry the mails implied, for example, the power to provide pensions for postal workers, or insure the security of the mails, etc. The federal government was not going to be restricted to just precisely those powers mentioned in the Constitution. So from the beginning, interpretation was to be important and the door was opened to a great growth of federal power.
One could still argue that the powers of the federal government are restricted to the few broad areas more explicitly delegated in the Constitution: mails, currency, foreign and interstate trade, war, patents and copyrights, some aspects of law and justice, etc. But clever lawyers, judges and politicians have always been able to justify other powers, "necessary" to exercise these few powers effectively.
Even Jefferson and Madison claimed powers in excess of these when they felt it necessary. If government is given the power to coin money, it eventually claims the power to establish a bank. If it is allowed to regulate interstate commerce it will eventually want to build roads. If it is charged with promoting the general welfare, it may be offered a land deal that it finds impossible to pass up, in spite of the absence of any explicit authorization in the Constitution.
Joe is always in the position of the Jefferson or Madison of the Federalist Era. Their views changed, or developed, or discovered exceptions when they themselves were in power (though it was Madison himself who argued against inserting the "expressly" back in 1790). It's just as well that he doesn't trust politicians, since they won't hesitate to claim powers for themselves when they can. The other side of the coin is that something like the Louisiana Purchase, whose legality was questioned at the time, probably was a great benefit for the country.
Patrick Henry, who opposed the Constitution, was right about what would happen. But the country saw the risk and took that path anyway, because the Articles of Confederation had deficiencies of its own.
It may be that someday we will return to a more limited government, but it's not 100% accurate to say that this was exactly or entirely what the framers intended. To be sure, they never dreamed of the dozens of alphabet agencies that we have now, but they were quite willing to make use of "implied powers" when they thought it "necessary and proper."
Everything fails in the long run. The Great Experiment, at this point, is kind of like an old car that we keep fixing up by installing inferior quality replacement parts. Nobody seems to be manufacturing any George Washingtons or Thomas Jeffersons any more, so we keep hoping that the Chuck Schumers and the Barbara Boxers and the Tom Daschles will do. Unfortunately, I think the replacement parts, while keeping the engine running for a while longer, actually do damage to the engine. One of these days, we're going to get to the point where a whole new engine is required.
You won't get a new enginge from replacement parts! You'll need OEM Jefferson and Madison and Adams and Washington. (Although it appears the Constitution was Made in the U.S.A., some parts came from elsewhere, but OEM, to be sure)
My wife, bless her heart, was making GOTV calls to her friends for conservative anti-abortion gubernatorial candidate Bret Schundler. She still hasn't gotten over the number of people - ostensibly solid Christians - who told her that they would be voting for that sweaty little democrat McGreevey because he would be spending a billion dollars on new public school construction, and their husbands expected a piece of that business.
This is how we have lost our republic.
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.