WE ARE PAYING THEM TO CONTROL US !!!
Posted on 01/31/2002 6:40:31 AM PST by FreedomWarrior
Constitution- Who Cares?
by W. James Antle III
COLUMN OF THE DAY!!
January 31, 2002
It goes without saying among the few of us who care about such things that the United States has veered off track from the constitutional republic envisioned by its Founders. From a system of limited government, where the federal government had a few defined powers expressly delegated by the Constitution (shown, right) with the remainder left to the states, we have morphed into a regime under which the federal government defines its own powers and progressively turns the states into its own administrative units.
So the question is: Why do so few people care?
Part of the answer is monumental constitutional ignorance. People don't seem to understand that the Constitution is supposed to limit government, not just establish procedures by which the government operates. It says that the president must be at least 35 years of age and native-born, but it also contains a Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms that the federal government must not infringe upon. It enumerates the specific powers of the central government. The average American simply has no idea what the Constitution says or does.
Of course, it has long been the case that the Constitution was too radical for the American people. For a number of years, polls have shown majorities opposing protections afforded by the Bill of Rights when they were not identified as such. This doesn't even include the Tenth Amendment, but amendments that are ostensibly popular among liberals such as the First and the Fourth. So it isn't clear that a majority of Americans would support the Constitution even if they understood it.
This is tragic, because apart from constitutional government there is no basis for lawful government. In order for the law to act as a shield and not a weapon, the lawmakers cannot be a law unto themselves. We are devolving to precisely that point.
After all, we argue for and against various government spending programs or adding a prescription drug benefit to Medicare on the alleged merits of these proposals. Nobody bothers to ask whether any of these proposals are constitutional. Those who support them are never challenged to show where in the Constitution the federal government specifically received its authorization to intrude in that area. The columnist Joe Sobran has quipped that anything called a "program" is unconstitutional.
Constitutional conservatives don't always help their own cause. The reality is that while a government unconstrained by the Constitution is in principle tyrannical, most Americans are still free to live their lives largely as they please. So talk about our tyrannical government produces nods of agreement from true believers, but causes the average voter to roll their eyes. Rather than educating people about the Constitution, many constitutionalists would rather reinforce "black helicopter" and "tinfoil hat" stereotypes and drive soccer moms into the arms of Hillary Clinton.
Yes, horrible things happened at Waco and Ruby Ridge at the hands of the federal government. But most Americans don't identify with lunatics who believe they are Jesus Christ and start bizarre religious cults. Nor do they identify with nutty white separatists who want to isolate themselves from modernity. This does not mean that any of these people deserved to die. What it does mean is that Joe Average is not going to look at the burning compound in Waco on TV and say, "Wow, those people were so much like me, I fear that I could be next." Sure, some pretty awful things have happened to fairly ordinary people on account of the drug war, but by and large, the federal government hasn't given ordinary people much of a reason to worry.
Most people live in nice homes and enjoy a nice standard of living. They are free to go to school where they want, work where and what profession they want, live where they want, marry who they want, etc. Millions of Americans no longer even pay income taxes. The federal government doesn't significantly impede them in anyway. Once in a while somebody forgets to pay their income taxes, or runs afoul of racial quotas, or has their livelihood ruined by some regulation like the farmers of Klamath Falls. But it doesn't happen to enough people to spark much of a popular uprising the way inflation-induced "bracket creep" did 20 years ago.
A welfare state is not this writer's idea of a free society, but it is a great deal freer than totalitarianism. The difference between the two is as great as the difference between Bill Clinton and Joseph Stalin. People who can't tell this difference are why advocates of limited government get tarred as alarmists and nutcases.
Of course, some of the power gained by the federal government has not actually led to a net increase in government power over citizens' lives. The Constitution limited the federal government, but did not originally offer any protections against the depredations of state governments, which were still free (subject to their own constitutions) to establish churches, knock people's doors down and otherwise deny their rights. Some of the powers the federal government has gained resulted from curbing anti-freedom policies enacted at the state level.
The fact that Americans still enjoy a greater degree of freedom than most of the rest of the world does not mean that concerns about unconstitutional government are unwarranted. Just because we have retained our freedoms after the limits on government were uprooted doesn't mean that unlimited government will never be exploited for evil means. Some people suggest secession as a means of combating big government that doesn't respect the Constitution. In principle, secession is a valid tool for escaping a rapacious central government. But who is going to secede from what? It is not as if there is one constitutionally pure section of the country that is being oppressed by another. The American people have democratically chosen to go down the path of big government, North, South, East and West. The differences are only in degree.
Life is really good in the United States. The downside is, while preserving the Constitution may keep it that way, things being so good make it more difficult to make that case. Yet it is important to understand why this is so rather than make all kinds of proclamations that insure that constitutionalism will simply be ignored.
© 2002 W. James Antle III
Though I commend your thoughtful exposition on Article I Section 8- the "sweeping clause",
some might misunderstand it to grant unenumerated powers to the Congress.
Following James Madison's reccommendation that disputes over the meaning of the Constitution should be judged by it's actual wording, and failing that, by the debates in the state ratifying conventions:
Virginia Ratifying Convention
Mr. GEORGE MASON. ...That Congress should have power to provide for the general welfare of the Union, I grant. But I wish a clause in the Constitution, with respect to all powers which are not granted, that they are retained by the states. Otherwise, the power of providing for the general welfare may be perverted to its destruction.
Many gentlemen, whom I respect, take different sides of this question. We wish this amendment to be introduced, to remove our apprehensions. There was a clause in the Confederation reserving to the states respectively every power, jurisdiction, and right, not expressly delegated to the United States. This clause has never been complained of, but approved by all Why not, then, have a similar clause in this Constitution, in which it is the more indispensably necessary than in the Confederation, because of the great augmentation of power vested in the former? In my humble apprehension, unless there be some such clear and finite expression, this clause now under consideration will go to any thing our rulers may think proper. Unless there be some express declaration that every thing not given is retained, it will be carried to any power Congress may please.
...Mr. GEORGE NICHOLAS, in reply to the gentlemen opposed to the clause under debate, went over the same grounds, and developed the same principles, which Mr. Pendleton and Mr. Madison had done. The opposers of the {443} clause, which gave the power of providing for the general welfare, supposed its dangers to result from its connection with, and extension of, the powers granted in the other clauses. He endeavored to show the committee that it only empowered Congress to make such laws as would be necessary to enable them to pay the public debts and provide for the common defence; that this general welfare was united, not to the general power of legislation, but to the particular power of laying and collecting taxes, imposts, and excises, for the purpose of paying the debts and providing for the common defence, — that is, that they could raise as much money as would pay the debts and provide for the common defence, in consequence of this power. The clause which was affectedly called the sweeping clause contained no new grant of power.
"...Mr. MADISON was surprised that any gentleman should return to the clauses which had already been discussed. He begged the gentleman to read the clauses which gave the power of exclusive legislation, and he might see that nothing could be done without the consent of the states. With respect to the supposed operation of what was denominated the sweeping clause, the gentleman, he said, was mistaken; for it only extended to the enumerated powers. Should Congress attempt to extend it to any power not enumerated, it would not be warranted by the clause. "
(emphasis added for those in a hurry)
It grants congress large power, but only to carry out it's enumerated powers, which enumerated powers are sometimes interpreted too broadly in our new Republic of Dependency (oops, how did that slip out!), but that is another problem altogether.
As I said, I commend your remarks- I merely wished them not to be misunderstood.
I would have a little less trouble describing FDR as a conservative if he presented his policies wholly as a response to an unprecedented crisis and told us we could and should return to older ways once the crisis had passed. This he did not do. A lot of his ideas were purely improvisational and adopted under a "try anything and see if it works" mandate. Some of FDR's policies made things worse. He was not so ideological himself, but he was indebted to his wife and other ideologues, and this meant that he had to turn his back on the temporary and provisional origins of his policies.
So on the whole, I can't call FDR or Truman or Johnson conservatives. There was too much of a desire to change society and to exalt the federal government and too much of an indifference to traditional social and constitutional practices. In some ways their hands were forced by economic and technological developments, as were Eisenhower's. The feeling was that they had to throw the powers of the government behind economic production or risk another depression. But none of them gave any caveats or warnings about the effects of what they were doing or about what we were losing, so I can't call them conservatives.
The idea of the "Old Republic" tends to get overused. I don't think it can be restored. I question whether it's really what the Founders wanted. And I know Lincoln didn't destroy it. And that "state's rights" and individual rights are not the same thing.
But consider: in 1801 Jefferson, a poor speaker with a timid side, decided that he would not read the State of the Union message before Congress. The appearance of the President in Congress was too reminiscent for him of the British sovereign appearing in Parliament to open the session. Better to send the speech by messenger and have it read by someone else, and this became a tradition.
In 1913 Woodrow Wilson went to Congress and read the speech himself and created a new tradition. It's a symbolic change, but a significant one. From that day forward, every President has had to have a "Vision" and present comprehensive "Programs" to Congress with drama and flourishes. With Wilson (some would say TR) activist, programmatic government began at the federal level -- the central government that would not stop interfering and intervening and proclaiming. It was a big change. Perhaps the biggest change is how much government and politicians and officeholders used new media to call attention to themselves, but Wilson did mark a real break with what came before.
"Strict construction" may not be viable now, or what the Founders actually intended, but it should be clear that there have been changes, and that there are other ways of governing under our Constitution, which may give more value to freedom or localism and less to centralized and concentrated power.
With regard to the federal-state controversy: It's a bit like what what's been going on in Europe. British Conservatives see the development of the common market as the source of a horrible new tyranny. Continentals, who in many cases have lived under tyrants, pooh-pooh British concerns, as do the Irish, who did not find as much freedom under the "British constitution" as the English claim that it provides. The nation-state was no bulwark against tyranny for the Germans or Italians. Nor did the "sovereign state" of Mississippi or Virginia provide much protection for African-Americans.
So who's right? I don't think there's any easy answer. For Britons, the replacement of a long-standing parliament and guaranteed rights by an unelected Eurobureaucracy is a travesty of freedom and the beginning of government by administrative and judicial fiat. For the Bretons or Corsicans or Scots or Welsh the European Community may mean a chance to develop the same sort of free national institutions that the English treasure. For Germans it means an additional guarantee of individual rights that have been denied them in the past.
I have to say that I view the development of larger, more distant and unresponsive bureaucracies as a bad thing. There is a lot to be said for a Swiss-style system that decentralizes power, limits the central government and is responsive to local concerns. But there are no easy answers one way or the other.
Anyway, though I don't agree with you, this has been a very stimulating debate. When we stop repeating what we already think, and start listening to objections and counterarguments, things get interesting and educational.
WE ARE PAYING THEM TO CONTROL US !!!
Post 29...NNN Natterning Nabobes Negativism
I know you and the Taliban would prefer the 12th Century, but it is the 21st.
Fascinating! You seem to be admitting that you're a fascist.
As to the Madison quote ( on the next web page) it's preceded by:
"Mr. TYLER ...Will they not be able, by the sweeping clause, to call in foreign assistance, and raise troops, and do whatever they think proper to carry this proposition into effect? He then concluded that, unless this clause were expunged, he would vote against the Constitution. "
Admittedly, I hang it's context only upon the one word "proper" in Mr. Tyler's statement, and the common usage of the term.
On reconsideration, my use of the Mason quote for "atmosphere" was a mistake on my part, leading to misunderstanding.
That's not true at all. Most of The Bill of Rights do prohibit States, but only the First doesn't. Please read them again ...
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.
In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
.
By saying "Congress shall make no law" the 1st Amendment prohibits the central government only, not the states. So you are right, if it not for the prohibition within the constitutions of the several states, those states would be free to limit the press, free speech, and establish a religion (until the 14 Amendment came along). But Amendments 2 - 8 say things like ...
"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." (period)
"No Soldier shall" (period)
"The right of the people ... shall not be violated" (period)
"In all criminal prosecutions"
"and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any Court of the United States" (and since there is no federal power to prosecute petty $21 criminals {only Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations} this Amendment applies to ALL courts within the United States) and ...
"Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted." (also all encompassing)
That's why the 10 Amendment says "The powers not ... prohibited by it (the Constitution) to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." If the Constitution did not prohibit the States in some ways, they would not have had to say that the Powers not prohibited to the States are reserved to the States, right?
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.