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.
so true. and so few people realize it. so sad....
"All men having power ought to be distrusted to a certain degree."
-- James Madison in The Federalist
"The tree of Liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
-- Thomas Jefferson
I think it is "we the people" who must realize that the Constitution is and will remain dead unless WE give it renewed life. It will only become a "living document" again if WE give it life.
Maybe they realized there was built in protection in the fact that a state that is tyrannical risks losing their population, i.e. source of income, due to the people abandoning that state for less tyrannical ones?
I'm on ouro's bump list anyway, but thanks.
My suspicions aren't quite as educated. I've always thought that his columns come off more like caricatures of conservatism than the real thing. Funny thing... I always thought the same thing about Ann Coulter's writing. Both she and Horowitz tend to limit themselves to left wing venues like Bill Maher's ridiculously named "politically Incorrect" and the Ivy League lecture circuit. It has a bad smell to it.
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.