Posted on 04/25/2002 9:41:56 AM PDT by Korth
WorldNetDaily book editor Joel Miller recently authored one of the best common-sense constitutional arguments against the government’s failed “war on drugs” that I’ve seen (“Alan Keyes is Wrong!”, April 23). It was a response to neo-conservative Alan Keyes, who had written in support of U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft’s use of the federal Controlled Substances Act to exert federal dominion over drug regulation by the states. Keyes was addressing Oregon’s “euthanasia laws” that permit the dispensation of lethal drugs, and Miller agreed with him that “killing yourself . . . is not medically legitimate.”
The bigger issue, though, is what constitutional right the federal government has to exert such control over drug regulation – or any kind of regulation for that matter – by the states. As Miller pointed out, Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution, which delineates the legitimate appropriations of Congress, does not include regulating drugs (or the vast majority of what the federal government does today, for that matter). The Tenth Amendment, moreover, reserves such powers “to the States respectively, or to the people.”
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. As Dean Sprague wrote in Freedom Under Lincoln, “States Rights, which prior to 1860 had been as important a part of northern political beliefs as southern, were overturned.” This includes, first and foremost, the Tenth Amendment.
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.
There is a method in the neo-con assault on the Constitution: They routinely invoke the part of the Declaration of Independence about “all men are created equal,” but not the rest of the document, as our “national creed,” even if the policies they advance in the name of that creed are in deep conflict with the Constitution itself. For example, in Keyes’s article he bases his argument in support of federal drug regulation on the equality principle of the Declaration. He claims that the Constitution supposedly creates a “federal regime of ordered liberty” by which democratic mobs supposedly “govern themselves in dignity and justice” (I’m not making this up, honest).
To neo-cons like Keyes, the Constitution supposedly prohibits the interpretation of federal law by anyone but the federal government itself because the people of individual states are supposedly incapable of doing so; only “the people of the whole nation” are “competent” to perform this task. But his makes no sense, for there is no such thing as “the people as a whole” acting on this or any other issue. The fact that a small percentage of us votes every four years or so does not imply that we are acting with competence as “a whole people” on this or any other issue. A state referendum on a specific issue, on the other hand, is much more meaningful in terms of citizen participation.
Keyes barely ever makes a speech or writes a column anymore where he does not invoke the Declaration and make a not-too-subtle comparison between himself and Abraham Lincoln. Indeed, he frequently states that his main passion, the pro-life movement of today, is the equivalent of the abolition movement of the nineteenth century. (This comparison is not entirely accurate, however, if one acknowledges Pulitzer Prize winning Lincoln biographer David Donald’s statement that “Lincoln was not an abolitionist”).
The link between Lincoln and neo-con ideology is clear: Lincoln falsely claimed that the Union preceded the states, and was therefore not subject to their sovereignty. The neo-cons make the exact same argument in advancing whatever policy cause they happen to be involved in, whether it is drug regulation, abortion, censoring of television, waging war, etc. This is why so many neo-cons, such as the ones associated with Keyes and the Claremont Institute, are such slavish idol worshippers when it comes to Lincoln. They use his martyred “sainthood” to promote their political agenda through an ever more powerful federal government. That’s why they’re described as “neo-cons” and are not a part of the Old Right tradition: They are comfortable with Big Government, as long as it fights their wars and enacts their social and regulatory programs. This is one reason why there is such a large “Lincoln Cult” among conservative (but mostly left/liberal) academics and think tank employees.
But the alleged supremacy of the federal government over the states is a lie. It was established by the most violent means, a war that killed the equivalent of more than 5 million Americans (standardizing for today’s population), not logic, argumentation, or even legal precedent. It is a lie because:
Each American colony declared sovereignty from Great Britain on its own; After the Revolution each state was individually recognized as sovereign by the defeated British government; The Articles of Confederation said, “each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence”; The states then decided to secede from the Articles and dropped the words “Perpetual Union” from the title; Virginia’s constitutional ratifying convention stated that “the powers granted resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression.” This right was also asserted for all other states; In The Federalist #39 James Madison wrote that ratification of the Constitution would be achieved by the people “not as individuals composing one entire nation, but as composing the distinct and independent States to which they respectively belong,” flatly contradicting the contrary assertions of Keyes and other neo-cons; The Constitution always speaks of “the United States” in the plural, signifying that the individual states were united in forming the federal government as their agent while maintaining their sovereignty over it; The Constitution can only be amended with the authority of the states; Until 1914 U.S. Senators were appointed by state legislatures so that the states could retain a degree of sovereignty over federal “officials,” who now have carte blanche to rule over us as they wish.
Only by endlessly repeating what Emory University philosopher Donald Livingston calls Lincoln’s “spectacular lie” that the federal government created the states (and not the other way around), and that the nation was supposedly founded by “the whole people” and not the people of the states in political conventions can the neo-cons continue to champion the further centralization of governmental power to serve their own political ends, whatever they may be.
Of course, it’s not only the neo-cons who perpetuate this lie. Liberals and other assorted leftists do so as well. The left-wing journalist Garry Wills, for example, praises Lincoln’s “open air sleight of hand” in effectively rewriting the true history of the founding (not unlike so many of the former communist governments rewrote their own histories during the twentieth century) because it enabled us to embrace “egalitarianism” and the massive welfare state in whose name it has been advanced (Lincoln at Gettysburg).
Columbia University law professor George P. Fletcher echoes the neo-con mantra in Our Secret Constitution, where he celebrates the fact that the centralized state that was imposed on the nation by the Lincoln administration has led directly to the adoption of myriad “welfare programs,” “affirmative action measures,” the New Deal, modern workplace regulation, etc. He is quite gleeful in his description of the Gettysburg Address as “the preamble of the second American constitution.” This is not necessarily a written constitution, however, but one that has been imposed by federal policy.
This transformation of American government from one in which federalism, states rights, and the rights of nullification and secession allowed the citizens of the states to retain sovereignty over the federal government to a consolidated, monolithic Leviathan, means that Americans now live under what historian Clinton Rossiter called a “constitutional dictatorship.” He used this phrase in a book of the same name which appropriately featured an entire chapter on the “Lincoln Dictatorship.”
As for Alan Keyes. You may consider him a conservative hero, but most conservatives, myself included, do not. BTW, I happen to agree with Keyes on some issues. I just don't like him. As for George W.Bush being a neo-con, that's simple not true. At no time in his life, was Bush ever politically associated with liberalism and therefore, can't be labeled a neo-con. And finally, to equate President Bush with Neville Chamberlain, shows a poor understanding of history. You may not support Bush, or even like him, but your convoluted rationale and inflammatory rhetoric, concerning his loyal conservative-republican supporters, has no basis in truth and serves no good purpose.
The tenth is full functional, -- but states political regimes refuse to use it to fight the feds.
Actually it did. Read his book that's been discussed in depth around here, The Real Lincoln.
Great arguement, -- 'it did'.
Yes, Lincoln hating ideas are much discussed, but offer little. -- The fact is that federalisation started in earnest in the 1900's.
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
So what? - Doesn't change the facts that the federal government had little power till it stole it in the early 20th century.
Are you claiming that Hills Northern Pacific didn't get federally granted right of way?
Wasn't the alternate section grant still in effect?
Unfortunately true. State-level politicians have more power with federal dollars.
In what context did he state that? It might mean a lot, if you make some effort to explain. -- And, -- Johnson is hardly anyone most of us would choose as a constitutional authority, -- can you understand this position?
What the critics of Lincoln are saying is that they wish the South had the same right to self-determination that our government has long proclaimed to other parts of the world.
I am not aware of anyone who thinks that the south would ever have volutarily rejoined the northern States in political union, especially after the brutal treatment the north inflicted on non-combatants in the south. As for the eventual abolition of slavery in the south: Slavery had existed throughout the northern States at one time, and had gradually been abolished. It was also peacefully abolished throughout Latin America. There is no reason to believe that things would have ended up any differently in the South.
It is an honor to make your acquaintance. Please allow me to express my deepest sympathies with the passing of your late husband, a man whose likeness will grace our presence but once a millenium.
Deo Vindice.
Bump.
Any drastic change in history such as the South winning its independence would have greatly altered course of history throughout the world. We don't know the details of what those changes might be, but it is rash to assume that communism and national socialism would automatically have arisen in any event.
And when one considers the terrible course that history has in fact taken the last 140 years (and especially the last 98 years), it is wise and useful to consider how our past leaders could have done things differently to avoid the terrible destruction of lives and liberty that have occured during that time period. Learning from the mistakes made in the past is the best way to avoid the same horrible mistakes in the future.
Although it is true that originally a neo-conservative was a person on the left who switched to the conservative side on certain issues, the term now refers to anyone who shares such views whether or not they were ever on the left earlier in their life.
Then the states are forced to ratify the 13th Amendment (which was accepted) as a condition for RE-joining a union they allegedly never left, only when failing to ratify the 14th are kicked out (a violation of Article V BTW), puppet governments are instituted, and the south looted of untold millions in the next 12 years.
And we're supposed to pretend like it never happened. And like it.
Every President and Congress since Washington has made use of the "implied powers" of the federal government under the Constitution. That very much includes "strict constructionists" like Jefferson and Madison. That is part of the logic of the Constitution, and is the reason why the Constitution endured and the Articles of Confederation failed.
There may be constitutional questions about the drug war, but with the growth of interstate commerce after the Civil War, it was inevitable that the federal government would use its constitutional powers to regulate interstate trade. Whether this includes aspects of the drug war is another question, but for good or ill it does provide a constitutional mandate for much of what the government does today.
The idea that the Civil War was fought between Federalists and Anti-Federalists or centralizers and state's rightists or statists and libertarians is superficially appealing. It would come as a surprise to those Wisconsans who asserted state authority against the fugitive slave acts, though, and to those Southerners who used federal coercion to get their way on this issue. It would also trouble those who witnessed the conflicts between the state governments and the Confederate government or the willingness of both to use repressive measures to preserve their power.
Similarly, the speed with which Southerners got on the progressive bandwagon in the twentieth century to use federal taxes for their own benefit makes one skeptical of the whole idea of a fixed libertarian vs. statist, South vs. North polarity in American political history. As do the claims of "state's rightists" for absolute state sovereignty and their willingness to bring all the power of the state down on those who are in their power. State's rights is another form of statism and it can be ferocious to those in its grasp.
The idea of a federal union in which we all have certain basic rights and freedom of movement from state to state was more a Lincolnian than an anti-Lincolnian idea. The alternative would have meant more power for state government, no guarantees of basic rights, and less mobility across state lines.
They quibble of who did what a hundred forty years ago, while the constitution crumbles.
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.