Constitution- Who Cares?

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.

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.

Wow!

Another American Man!

What kind of a breath of FResh air are you??!!

God bless you, Sir!

FReegards

Brian

"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."

Even if the government had to justify it's actions according to the Constitution it wouldn't matter. The "promote the General Welfare" part is all of the justification that Congress needs. I'm afraid that it will ultimately take another Civil War to straighten out this mess.

You are absolutely correct!

Every activity in life is political and require a national policy.

That's the beauty of modern warstate governance; ALL aspects of people's lives are on the table for inspection, so to speak.

Only scaredy-cats worry about trifles like 'constitutionality'; we've got a state to build!(irony off)

Wouldn't it be nice to have a president who could actually cite how and why his actions were Constitutional instead of ones who only say the "C" word while repeating their oath of office?

Of course, we know that the Founders meant 'general welfare' to be a catch-all phrase to allow anything and everything not specifically allowed in the other articles, right?

"You will neither listen nor care, but you consented to the search by flying. The alternative to searching is no air travel. You could have walked and probably should have. "

Don't buy that argument for 1 nano-second. I MUST travel to earn a living to pay for this unconstitutional government. I also have my hard earned money stolen and then given to the same airlines that could give a rats behind about the constitution. The FAA is controlling the skys, it is a government agency, it MUST abide by the constitution. As I was going to a staff meeting called by my boss, I could NOT walk away. It was a forced inspection without a search warrant plain and simple.

You are spot on Jefferson. While I resented the intrusion when these were private firms, I now demand my constitutional rights from Federal Thugs Very interesting thought here. Civil Rights violations? Sounds like injunction material to me. Blackbird.

To carry your " I could have walked away logic further" what happens when these rag heads start bombing super markets and the government "in the interest of security" decides we need federal inspectors at the doors.

Do I just walk away without buying food? Read the Federalist Papers and you will see why the 4th amendment is there. If you read them you will be a thousand percent smarter than any congress critter. The fact that you are on the FreeRepublic already means your 200% smarter than any government worker

"Modernism"

That's the catch-phrase of every tinpot tyrant in the last 100 years.

'What about agricultural policy?' ...here's part of a policy: let landowners grow what they please.

Here's another...For national defence purposes, discreet action may be taken on many 'agricultural' fronts; don't need to clothe defence in socialist,'income-maintenance' schemes.

Unless the real purpose of these schemes is merely socialization and control.

How very 20th Century of you to be so swayed by the dizzying authority of the state!

What would your "Constitutional Republic" do differently about agriculture? About agriculture, well, How about instead of the globalist import/export, we eat what we grow here. When was the last time you bought a "Vine Ripe Tomato" at the supermarket? Bet you could have killed someone with it. The "Vine Ripe" came as an import from the global market, picked greener than hell and "ripened" in several weeks worth of shipping time from the global market place. Green tasteless garbage. Might as well be soylent green. If grown and consumed as the seasons permit here in MY Republic, the quality would be superior, period. Don't even try to tell me it's cheaper coming from YOUR Global Marketplace. That's one of many way's I can shoot down your globalist attitude, need more? Your disdain for MY Republic is showing in YOUR tone. Blackbird.

Let's jsut have a simple 3 paragraph answer on why we don't need a national policy on agriculture.

What should the national policy cover? What power or authority does the federal government have over agriculture outside the obvious interstate commerce aspects?

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.