The Neo-Con Assault on the Constitution

Lewrockwell.com ^ | April 25, 2002 | Thomas J. DiLorenzo

[FreeTally]

Lew Rockwell is off his rocker, 99.9% of the time

Wow, I could have sworn that Thomas Dilorenzo wrote this.

[AUgrad]

No it is a falsehood. The U.S. Constitution established the relation between the federal government and the individual citizen

The Constitution also established a relationship between the states and fedgov. Lincoln began the process that destroyed states rights and FDR began the process to destroy individual rights.

[freeeee]

I was responding to the point in your post, although I admit I did so sarcastically.

My point was that a common defense is provided for in Article I, Section 8 as a legitimate part of the central (federal) government.

The states most certainly could decide most matters locally, as the Constitution and the 10th Amendment mandates, without compromising the national defense.

Your assertion that a strict interpretation of the Constitution would allow an invasion of Nazis or communists is wrong, and is a scare tactic that holds no basis in reality.

Furthermore, the steady drift away from the Constitution highlighted in the article is causing our nation to more closey resemble the hightly centralized governments of the Nazis and the communists than the constitutional republic the Founders established.

[rightwing2]

Lew Rockwell is off his rocker, 99.9% of the time. I may not like Alan Keyes, but truth be told, he was never a liberal, hence he isn't a neo-con. Of course, when it comes to the truth, Rockwell is a seriously lost soul.

I used to like Rockwell's lectures on the virtues of limited government. However, I do agree Lew Rockwell's libertarian tirades have gotten old with time. Most offensive of all is his equivocating the US to the Soviet Union as an evil empire, something all anti-war Libertarians and liberals appear to be guilty of doing. Furthermore, Joel Miller is an idiot who regularly campaigns for immorality in the forms of legalized drugs, porn, prostitution, gambling in the traditional Libertarian fashion.

On the other hand, Alan Keyes is a conservative hero. How can you disagree with him? Perhaps because he has been critical of your hero, neoconservative President George W. Bush, the Neville Chamberlain of the Republican Party, who singlehandedly unconditionally surrendered the Republican Congressional majority to his Democrap buddies, McCain, Daschle and Gephardt. I'm sorry, but I will never get over Bush's betrayal of the Republican Party's hard-won Congressional majority. The man is a traitor to his Party, pure and simple. I think all clear-eyed Republican conservatives, who are not blinded by naive and unfounded unconditional loyalty to the President have come to realize that by now.

[billbears]

Of who lincoln was an avid follower. Subsidies of the scale that was approved for Union-Pacific were not seen before the War. And what were Clay's and Hamilton's motives? To unite the power at the federal level. It boils down to this and this only. The War was a fight between those that believed Jefferson and those that believed Hamilton. A Federalist/Anti-Federalist battle. And unfortunately the Anti-Federalists lost

[Wolfie]

They are comfortable with Big Government, as long as it fights their wars and enacts their social and regulatory programs.

Bingo!

[tacticalogic]

The U.S. Constitution established the relation between the federal government and the individual citizen.

And FDR corrupted that relationship when he "interpreted" things in the Constitution that weren't there.

[Hugin]

Your assertion that a strict interpretation of the Constitution would allow an invasion of Nazis or communists is wrong, and is a scare tactic that holds no basis in reality.

Actually my assertion had nothing to do with a strict interpretation of the Constitution, which I support. It had to do with whether two or three or ten countries rather than the USA could have won WWII and the Cold War. I don't think they could have.

BTW, a strict interpretation of the Constitution does not deal with the legitimacy of seccession, because the Constitution does not deal with it. Another point the Lincoln haters ignore is that Lincoln did not attack to south. He promised to do nothing and urged them to reconsider. But he refused to surrender US bases in the South. The successionists then attacked Fort Sumter thus bringing the war on themselves. Lincoln's extra-Contstitutional action have to be seen in the light of an unprecedented war for the survival of the country.

[Wolfie]

Link to Miller's article:

Alan Keyes Is Wrong!

[hove]

The "war on drugs" that so many conservatives blindly subscribe to is pure liberalism diguised as conservatism. It has consumed billions.....I mean $$$$BILLIONS! Those are dollars taken from citizens in taxes. And that money is handed to law enforcement, prisons, and the legal system. Year after year. And for what??! Have they stopped the supply or consumption of drugs. NO! What a freaking waste. Well folks, that is the definition of liberalism. Tax the people...line a few folks pockets...and get nothing done for society. But the real damage is to our Constitution! And if I'm not mistaken, those who would love to see our Constitution destroyed would tend to be liberals. Not conservatives.

[freeeee]

a strict interpretation of the Constitution does not deal with the legitimacy of seccession

I agree. That is a fault that I wish the Founders would have directly addressed.

Lincoln's extra-Contstitutional action have to be seen in the light of an unprecedented war for the survival of the country.

But look what it led to: a centralized form of government, alien to what is found in the Constitution. Sometimes I think Lincoln's cure is worse than the problem.

[tacticalogic]

The "war on drugs" that so many conservatives blindly subscribe to is pure liberalism diguised as conservatism.

The federal government's authority to wage the WOD is wholly dependant on FDR's interpretation of the Commerce Clause. The WOD is the bastard child of the New Deal.

[varina davis]

The Confederacy didn't lose, Billbears, it ran out of food, shoes, ammo and countless other supplies. It's military, unlike northern leaders, also did not advocate savaging enemy civilians and at no time was there any intent or attempt by the Confederacy to stage a coup. It was defending its homeland, pure and simple. Or as Pres. Davis said: "The principle for which we contend is bound to reassert itself, though it may be at another time and in another form." Amazing, isn't it, how that principle, more than 140 years later, continues to resonate with so many of Southern birth or Southern by choice?

[tpaine]

Miller interestingly quotes historian David Musto as having observed that until the late nineteenth century, the federal government laid no claim to such regulatory powers; such things were the responsibilities of the states, or the people. Miller is correct to invoke the Tenth Amendment in his argument, but this Amendment was all but destroyed during the War Between the States, after which federal political hegemony was established.

Miller also correctly observed that the "progressive era" federal regulatory agencies "were profoundly unconstitutional and un-American" and are "the elder bedmates of the coercive, expansionist politics of modern-day liberalism." Exactly. This, however, is exactly the position that neo-conservatives like Alan Keyes hold.

--------------------------------------

I agree with the author about Keyes & the neo-cons.

But his underlined irrationalities about Lincoln and the 'destruction of the 10th', mystify me.

The 14th was ratifyed in 1868 to make it clear that state governments must not ignore individual rights in writing law.
-- It did not remove any 10th amendment powers from states, as the author alleges in his 'hegemony' hype. --
Amusingly, the author admits in the previous undeline that Musto observed that this federalism did not occur till very 'late' in the 1800's, which is correct.

-- Thus, -- Lincoln & the 14th had little/nothing to do with the death of states 'rights'.
The loss of these state powers had everything to do with the rise of national political parties that embraced socialist principles at both state and federal levels.

The tenth is full functional, -- but states political regimes refuse to use it to fight the feds. -- Nothing is wrong with the constitution [that can't be easily fixed]. Everything is wrong about our political process.

[fporretto]

As the Scottish noble said in Monty Python and the Holy Grail, let's not get all bogged down in details about who killed who. Lincoln did a fair amount of damage, albeit he thought he was doing what he had to do. So did Wilson, and so did the two Roosevelts.

The article is, by and large, quite a good one. I'd take exception to diLorenzo's characterization of Dr. Keyes as a neo-con; I think he's a good solid conservative with one or two revulsions that cause him to make exceptions to strict Constitutional observance. Therein lies the rub: all of us have revulsions, or sympathies, that we think justify a departure from the strict terms of the law.

To get real, solid Constitutional fidelity from Washington today is probably beyond anyone's powers. Reagan couldn't do it, and he was about as tough as they come. Who do we hire next? Clint Eastwood? Or Ghengis Khan? Or do we settle for what we can get -- right now we've got a pretty good man at the helm, even if he's no Constitutional bulwark either -- and try to make our peace with a state of affairs that, while not what we'd want if we had our absolute free choice, still offers the individual and his "little platoons" a pretty good deal?

Tough call, really. And no, I'm not being sarcastic.

Freedom, Wealth, and Peace,
Francis W. Porretto
Visit The Palace Of Reason: http://palaceofreason.com

[Reagan Man]

Wow, I could have sworn that Thomas Dilorenzo wrote this.

He did. What's your point?

[GreenLanternCorps]

Varina

Please study your history. The Union armies: seized the Rebs largest ports, seized their main river, and burned their largest city, all the while slowly destroying the rebel armies. I do believe that means Johnny Reb lost the war big time!

GLC

[billbears]

Actually it did. Read his book that's been discussed in depth around here, The Real Lincoln. One of the things that happened with the 14th was that it received a no vote from the Southern states (a right of the state to turn down proposed amendments), which was followed quickly by occupation and another vote to get the 'correct' response. Two northern states were so adamant against the actions of the union that they reversed their votes on the Amendment (New Jersey and one other). The new no votes of the northern states were not counted and their original yes vote was kept

[tpaine]

Lincoln established the supremacy of federal authority over the rights of the state governments. FDR established the supremacy of federal authority over the rights of the individual.

See my last post.

The 14th established the supremacy of constitutional authority over the powers of the state governments to regulate the rights of the individual.
FDR unconstitutionaly established the supremacy of federal authority over the rights & powers delegated to the states.

And the states let him do it.

[tacticalogic]

FDR unconstitutionaly established the supremacy of federal authority over the rights & powers delegated to the states.

I can see it from that perspective, too.

And the states let him do it.

I think it's more accurate to say Congress let him do it. Using creative semantics to twist the Commerce Clause, rather than having public debate, vote and ratification of amendment, he effectively bypassed letting the states have any say in the matter.