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
Time to enact their dream? Just kidding. It is hard not to resort to extravagant claims in the face of the ignorance one is confronted with across this country on Constitutional issues.
There was a bill once which required the federal government to cite the Constitutional justification for all laws. It failed, of course. I think it was Sen. John Glen that said of this bill, then we wouldn't be able to do 95% of what we do.
Thanks
Some of the powers the federal government has gained resulted from curbing anti-freedom policies enacted at the state level.I'll bet there are a number of FReepers who would say "au contrare!"
Absolutely right. Joe Average most likely will cheer the fact that "they got what they deserved" because "they were freaks and nuts, they said so on television, so let 'em burn!"
Joe Average does good to be able to spell the word constitution, let alone have a rational thought about its meaning and purpose. If people don't wake up to reality soon, God help us all.
Incorrect. The Fourth and Fifth Amendments restricted government at ALL levels, not merely the federal government, who, at the time had NO departments with their associated JBTs. All states who ratified the Constitution also ratified the portion that makes the Constitution the supreme law of the land.
When I asked for their "search warrant" they looked at me like I was from another planet. I am a 53-year-old white man certainly not a member of the group we know is causing the terrorist problems around the world but that did not matter.
When I informed them, that as a US Citizen, I was protected by the 4th amendment from a search without a search warrant they said it was an FAA regulation.
They could not comprehend that the US Constitution supersedes some FAA scum.
Don't give me any of the "in the interest of security" crap... Every time the government wants to overstep its bounds they use the "in the interest of security" scam.
The government knows the culprits but because of the heat they would take from the PC crowd, they don't dare get rid of this 3rd world trash.
The government would rather harass life long citizens than do any profiling of people who obviously care more about their cult than the USA.
This is the one and only time I wish Janet Reno was still AG. She had a unique way of eliminating people who had a belief different from hers.
Each report of a committee on a public bill or public joint resolution shall contain the following: (1) A statement citing the specific powers granted to Congress in the Constitution to enact the law proposed by the bill or joint resolution.Needless to say, it has had little effect, except to prove that you can rationalize absolutely anything.
a) because it's been so incremental (boiling frog syndrome)
b) it hasn't bitten them yet, at least with a bite that hurts
As to "b" - it will. And when they realize it, it will be too late. It probably already is.
You are correct. Amazing.
This is interesting. In all liklihood, you would have been incorrect pre-9/11, but you are probably correct now that the screeners are fedgov employees.
When they were employed by the airlines, your argument would not have washed, because the Constitution only limits the government, not a private entity like an airline. But now that they're officially feral employees, I do believe that you are correct.
And at this point it's getting to be considered treason to ask aloud if there is a Nat Turner or John Brown among us...
Exactly! The War of Northern Agression was a war against not only the South, but the Constitution and all people within the territory of the USA, North, South, East and West. It was a turning point to tyranny. It was the setting up of big government which catagorically ignores the Constitution. And it was an educational tool to show what happens to those who oppose the new tyranny.
Did you make that error deliberately? I hope so. What a hoot!
Do I get a bump on this?
Is this an isolated occurance or is the "gubernut" extending cencorship to publicly funded libraries in the name of national security?
Any Freepers care to look into this?
The Welfare International Corporate State vs The Small-Local-Family business?
Whose vested interest 'is' vested against the 'other'?
You know there was a time in this nation when it DIDN'T require a national policy. If you want to live in an empire fine, some of us would like to have our Consitutional Republic back. And just because you don't apparently agree with the ideals put forth in this article does not mean it's misinformation
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.