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.
Do you have a cite from the Constitution which provides lifetime tenure for the Supremes?
Interesting. I've held that sentiment in the back of my mind for years. I have to admit though, people tell me if I read one of his books, particularly Radical Son, my suspicions will be allayed.
Have you read any of his books?
That paragraph may do violence to the Constitution, but that is just what urban police supervisors expect of the officers working under them. Encoded from the pc, it means: in the Jim Snow system of justice, screw the rights of white, heterosexual, able-bodied males -- unless they are obviously rich -- and "enhance" the rights of blacks and Hispanics.
Once upon a time, urban police brass were at war with the racial left; the brass have since unconditionally surrendered.
Fascinating topic. Care to elaborate, Twodees? There are all kinds of Marxists, right?
That's just scary.
Not only scary but true
In truth, "the left's anti-American, but "progressive" agendas can only be achieved by deceiving the people" is at the same time an apt description of the right.
The other neocons like Goldberg, Derbyshire and that group are less successful than Horowitz in hiding their socialist leanings. Their philosophical "daddy", ol' Bill Buckley was not at all successful at hiding the fact that he's a communist. He's really so poor at his protestations that he's a conservative, he surely has to know that nobody believes him except people too dense to be allowed to cross streets unaccompanied.
Aha! And I've unmasked you. Why do you persist in hiding the fact that you're really Onedees--you sly devil. How do you it?
No one is ever going to give us freedom. Our Founding Fathers fought to get it, and "we the people" will have to fight to keep it. The government is at odds with the Constitution. The government is NOT the Constitution. The government is a cancer and it is only "the people" who make our 3 branches of government adhere to the Constitution's principles and law, that will slow or reverse the loss of freedom.
Nevertheless, overall decentralism is most likely to maximize individual freedom. A highly centralized megastate offers individuals the fewest escape routes from government coercion. If a state were today to abuse our rights, it would be easy to move to another one.
As Joe Sobran says in this article, the Constitution isn't perfect. But it was crafted by people whose wisdom is superior to that of the current political leadership, and its restoration would be vastly preferable from the perspective of liberty than the current state of affairs.
The "Bill of Rights" did not "give" us our rights starting from the time they were written or recorded. The "Bill of Rights" are rights given to individuals by their Creator and, as such, precede the formation of the State and Federal government and their respective Constitutions.
The recording of the "Bill of Rights" in the Constitution simply put everyone, and every entity (states and feds) on notice, saying, just in case anyone might forget, we are going to list our rights and enumerate and restrict government powers.
How can the state governments remove rights that preceded the state governments -- rights bestowed on each individual by his/her Creator. Governments, in practice, may abuse their power, but they don't have the legal authority to do it. What am I missing?
Patience in politics is perhaps the rarest of all virtues. They who hold fast to their principles, their rigid beliefs about right and wrong, honesty and deceit, integrity and opportunism, are the last repositories of that virtue. It is the best of all possible causes. In a good cause, there are no failures.
A most excellent bump to that! And a bookmark of your site. Thanks.
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.