-
Dick Morris’ Bad Entitlements Advice
April 1, 2013 | 41 comments
-
Will Welker Walk?
March 11, 2013 | 273 comments
-
Not Yet Elite, But Pretty Neat
February 5, 2013 | 8 comments
-
The Harbaugh Bowl
January 22, 2013 | 33 comments
-
Tom Terrific
January 14, 2013 | 55 comments
Constitutional Opinions
Caplan’s Constitution
Versus the Founders’.
Lincoln Caplan is confused. He has been given space on the prestigious New York Times op-ed page to explore “the meaning of constitutional conservatism.” Yet though he struggles mightily, Caplan ultimately comes up short in his quest for understanding.
“The phrase is used mainly in opposition: against health care reform; against the General Motors bailout; against President Obama’s policies,” Caplan observes. “A year ago, conservatives focused on the gravity of economic problems. This election, their concern shifted to the danger represented by solutions.”
Never mind that many voters adduced that unconstitutional solutions were in fact causing our grave economic problems. Caplan finds it odd that anyone would find the federal government owning an automobile manufacturer, mandating the purchase of health insurance, or spending vast sums of money on purely local projects difficult to square with the Constitution. Why can’t the government make cars or run the health care system if it promotes the general welfare of “We the people” in our more perfect union?
Caplan invokes the authority of the late Justice William Brennan. “It is arrogant to pretend that from our vantage we can gauge accurately the intent of the framers on application of principle to specific, contemporary questions,” Brennan averred. But the argument has never been that we can know with certainty what James Madison would think about the stimulus package (though the Federalist Papers certainly give us a clue). The Constitution itself specifies what activities the federal government is authorized to undertake.
The U.S. Constitution is essentially a list of things the three branches of the federal government are permitted to do, with a few activities specifically prohibited. The entire American system of government is premised on the idea that the people delegated defined, specific powers to Washington. That doesn’t mean there are no problems of interpretation. But the doctrine of enumerated powers is basic.
Now you can edit Legal Affairs and write for the New Republic, the New Yorker, U.S. News and World Report, and the New York Times while guided by the apparent belief that these basics are incoherent mumbo-jumbo. There have been disagreements about the size and scope of the federal government since beginning of the Republic. But the notion that the Constitution imposed substantive, rather than merely procedural, limitations on that government was for a long time fairly uncontroversial.
As recently as the early 20th century, the consensus was that it would require a constitutional amendment to give the federal government the power to ban the sale, manufacture, and transportation of alcoholic beverages. In 1933, it took a second constitutional amendment to repeal this power. Today, if Washington were inclined to ban Demon Rum it would be justified under the pretext of regulating interstate commerce.
Consider the constitutional amendments that ended slavery. Slavery had a much bigger impact on interstate commerce than most things the federal government today claims the power to regulate under the interstate commerce clause. Yet even people who in the context of those times held fairly expansive views of the role of government did not think the interstate commerce clause gave the federal government the power to end the massive human rights abuse of slavery.
The slavery example proves that the Constitution itself was not perfect. That’s why the Framers included an amendment process. But it also shows that even our political class once took seriously the idea that their actions must be authorized or justified by constitutional text to be legitimate. Caplan treats this belief as a form of madness.
Why, Republican Sen.-elect Mike Lee of Utah apparently “views much of what the federal government currently does as unconstitutional.” When Nevada Republican John Ensign said the same thing during his unsuccessful 1998 campaign against Harry Reid, he was accused of appealing to the “black helicopter” crowd.
Similarly, Caplan appears to think it bizarre that John Boehner would want “every bill to identify the part of the Constitution it rests on.” When then Attorney General Ed Meese made constitutionalist arguments during the Reagan administration, liberal Supreme Court justices rebuked him and the “news media judged that the justices got the better of the attorney general.”
But this is hardly surprising. For decades, the federal government has ignored the non-procedural parts of the Constitution. Instead of treating it as something that limits the government’s power, the Constitution has been reduced to Robert’s Rules of Order. Even many of the Republicans who speak loudest about “constitutional conservatism” will be perfectly content to engage in unconstitutional activity once they, rather than the Democrats, wield power.
When the Iraqis were haggling over their new, post-Saddam constitution, wags rightly joked: “Let’s just give them ours. We’re not using it anymore.”
Far from being an obstacle to solving our economic problems, fidelity to the Constitution would have prevented many of them. If the federal government operated within constitutional constraints, we would not stand on the brink of national bankruptcy. Our currency would not be debased. The federal government would not be inflating real estate or investment bubbles. Taxes would be much lower yet there would not be deficits as far as the eye can see.
Instead future generations will be saddled with obligations they never freely chose, struggling to pay for unconstitutional programs that politicians (and, to be frank, many of their constituents) can never summon the courage to reform. Freed from the chains of the Constitution, we are instead enslaved by what Belloc called the “servile state” — a state we cannot even pay for.
“The anger felt by those who favor constitutional conservatism is potent,” Caplan warns at the end of his column. Let’s hope so. Given the shambles we find ourselves in, it ought to be.
About the Author
W. James Antle, III, author of the new book Devouring Freedom: Can Big Government Ever Be Stopped?, is editor of the Daily Caller News Foundation and a senior editor of The American Spectator. You can follow him on Twitter @jimantle.
Ken (Old Texican VI)| 12.6.10 @ 8:09AM
W. James,
Ken the Sixth here.
As I have posted before, our Declaration, and Constitution, formed the social/political compact as a people.
Without it, we have no anchor, and no sails.
Without the Creator as their sole authority, and "endorser" of those documents, we have no compass, and no cannons to protect us.
As long as they are held sacrosanct, The Lord may yet tarry and give more men and women an opportunity to come to the light.
When those documents fail, the world goes into the endless night... until "The Day Of The Lord".
Tom Anderson | 12.6.10 @ 8:28AM
Why depend on a rootless and intellectually vacuous notion proposed by an outmoded and archaic religious creed when it is so much more effective to base one's morality on man's ability to advance his interests on the basis of reason and experience?
With friends like this, capitalism and the Constitution doesn't need declared enemies. It is destroyed from within by basing its reality on faith rather than the facts of reality.
Ken (Old Texican)| 12.6.10 @ 9:01AM
Tom,
Hi!
I always get a sad chuckle when I see a sentence like:
""Why depend on a rootless and intellectually vacuous notion proposed by an outmoded and archaic religious creed when it is so much more effective to base one's morality on man's ability to advance his interests on the basis of reason and experience?""
A couple of answers.
One, because basing ones morality on man's ability to advance his interests.....ALWAYS leads to tyranny. Just a lot of novel excursions to getting there.
Answer TWO,
You absolutely depend on faith to survive each day. If you go over a bridge in your car, you express faith in the builders.
If you go vote, you express faith in the vote counters.
...etc, adfinitum.
Sir, it is my honest faith that you don't really believe your own words. We all live by faith, and the only question is whether our faith is in fallible man, or infallible laws that we have so-far discovered; gravity for instance.
Might there not be a "Law Giver...and Keeper?"
Tom Anderson | 12.6.10 @ 12:17PM
Your entire point rests on an abuse of words. There is a clear difference in meaning between "faith" and "confidence". By "faith" is meant what the ordinary Christian means it means, i.e. the "faith" of the little child. Complete innocent acceptance with no necessary basis in fact or reason.
"Confidence" on the other hand requires some basis. When I cross the bridge, I do not express "faith" in the builder's competence at all, but "confidence" based on prior experience of seeing others cross the bridge unharmed.
Very big difference.
Ken (Old Texican)| 12.6.10 @ 1:16PM
Tom,
You stuck your foot in it that time. (smile)
To paraphrase, "that straw-dog won't hunt".
I shall never convince you of TRUTH. That is the office of the Holy Spirit.
(I now pause for a moment, and ask Him to touch your innermost mind...one more time...and turn on your lights.)
I will speak now of "confidence". I have buried a lot of friends and family. They lived their entire lives on faith. I have walked through Arlington cemetary.
I saw a lot of Christian crosses, and some stars of David...in memory of men and women I have total confidence in.
There are very few grave markers with an upraised middle finger pointed at God.
I've known a lot of guys like you as well. You guys don't die well.....or live joyously.
Confidence?
Heh, I have a LOT more confidence in God's gravity than I do in our bridge-builders' expertise.
Heh, I have been president of companies that built bridges, (and dams etc). We had to operate on a low-bid basis.
Gravity is more confidence inspiring. If that bridge breaks...you WILL go DOWN...to whatever crunch is awaiting you...every single time for eternity.
Please.
Quietly bow your head and let the "nonexistant" Creator of the universe speak in a whisper.
He promised He would not slap us up side the head. He made a covenant that He would not do so. He gave us free will thereby.
God bless you in your non-confidence. (Smile), stay off bridges.
uke| 12.7.10 @ 7:21AM
You fundies always end up telling us that we live joyless lives because you cannot fathom how a rational person would choose to live without groveling before an imaginary sky fairy. I pity you, because you have walled off a section of your mind that is forever impervious to reason. A mind is a terrible thing to waste.
Your smug condescension is unwarranted and destroys your credibility. We don't believe in your Imaginary Friend; get over it.
JuliaHope| 12.7.10 @ 11:23AM
As to the original point of Old Texan. He is simply stating what all the founding documents, including the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, are so very clear on. This country was founded on Judeo Christian beliefs, whether you like it or not. The founders believed in the protection of Divine Providence, whether you like it or not. The Supreme Court building has the Ten Commandments and Moses chiseled into the walls for crying out loud! And you can sit there and type about reason? Look around buddy, the Creator exists. And if you don't believe in Him, He STILL exists. Men don't get to "make up" their own afterlife, sorry.
And don't pity me, I'll have lost nothing even if I'm wrong about god. You however, you won't even know what's going on until it's vastly too late. It is I that pity you.
Gmason| 12.7.10 @ 11:24AM
You protest that you do not live a joyless life, and yet you respond with anger and derision to one who was gracious and well-wishing to you.
As for our faith, it is the same as your confidence, we have seen, over and over, the actually results of God in our lives and the lives of those around us - like wind in the trees, you can't see it, but you see the effects.
Finally, I would point you to Blais Pascal - an early philosopher smarter than you or I - the basic jist of his argument is this:
God either exists or he does not. My belief and your unbelief do not make it so or not so. I have never seen Kansas, for example. I can say "I do not believe in Kansas, but it does not make it disappear from the map.
So if I am wrong, and God does not exist, I have lost nothing, in fact I have gained, because I have had peace and confidence. And when I die their is nothing, so nothing lost.
You on the other hand, have much to lose if you are wrong. So I would make very sure, if I were you...
Read the bible and actually learn what all of those stories mean, they are not just events that happened in the lives of people, each one is also a symbol that tells a story for each of our lives today, as weel as a signpost for the history of the world.
Last Point. In Isaiah, God said he would scatter the people of Isreal, then bring them back, asking "can a nation be born in a day?" And it was in 1948. The Isrealites are there today, where are the Hittites, the Amorites, the Amelekites? Something to think about...
Tim the Enchanter| 12.7.10 @ 1:52PM
This, I believe, is commonly known as "Pascal's Wager".
Mark Caswell| 12.7.10 @ 1:43PM
You think you live by reason and "fundies" don't? How about you explain how it is that a single cell bacteria with 4 chromosomes ends up as a multicell creature with cell specialization and many more chromosomes. If you think so called "evolution" accounts for that without any explanation of how that might happen, you are not living on reason. Do you really believe (notice the operative word) that the human eye is the result of "natural selection"? You guys can laugh all you want NOW at Christianity but it is your eternal destiny that is at risk, not mine. By the way, how safe is that bridge during an earthquake?
Tom (not the athiest)| 12.8.10 @ 4:41PM
Ken, regarding Tom's anti-faith argument, I am reminded of the "teaching a pig to sing"... however I do enjoy your rebuttals. Maybe one day, Tom will surrender to the Holy Spirit.
Tom Anderson | 12.6.10 @ 12:21PM
As to tyranny, there's at least one case where a revolution was based on the Enlightenment ideas of reason and experience, and that was the American Revolution.
What is important about individual rights is not where anyone assumes we "get" them, but the fact that we have them as an indefeasible part of our nature as human beings. It is the recognition that there are things a society cannot do to individuals that is important about the Declaration of Independence, not the rhetorical device of ascribing them to a deity. In any case the Founders had very different ideas as to deity; they agreed, however, on the subordination of society to the individual.
Christopher| 12.6.10 @ 12:46PM
Tom, are you an atheist? Not meant as a criticism, just want to know the basis for your belief that religion should not be the basis for morality. Do you agree that we need some fixed principles as the basis for morality, otherwise we have moral relativism? If you do not use religion as the basis for fixed principle, then what do you use?
Vern Crisler| 12.6.10 @ 8:00PM
Hmm, that same "enlightenment" Declaration of Independence speaks of our "Creator" giving us our fundamental rights.
Gmason| 12.7.10 @ 11:27AM
Totally disagree. A very "reasonable" argument can be made if one does not accept the creator that wealth should be redistributed for the "common good," free speech should be curtailed to avoid offense to others, ad infintum. It's the basis of Progressive thinking.
Mark Caswell| 12.7.10 @ 1:53PM
As a matter of fact, there was a revolution devoted to the "enlightenment of reason" and it was not the American Revolution, but rather the French Revolution a short time later. The big difference between the two was, in fact, the reliance upon God in the American Revolution as opposed to the reliance upon Man in the French Revolution. If you don't know how that turned out, do some research. Hint- it wasn't pretty.
SocStud| 12.7.10 @ 7:49PM
Mr. Anderson is partly correct. Both the American and French Revolutions had Enlightenment philosophy at their roots.
The key difference - the American Revolution was guided by a question of the proper role of government vis a vis its citizens. While questions can be asked as to the degree the Founding Fathers embraced Christianity as we know it today (Unitarian, Deist, etc.), at least they couched their statements in deference to an higher authority.
France's revolutionaries on the other hand, whole-heartedly embraced humanism and its end result - secular humanism and atheism. That revolution was not against just the state, but against society as a whole. The revolutionaries didn't seek to simply replace a tyrannical king, but to reshape society and replace it with a secular, atheist, "reason-based" society.
Like all subsequent revolutions that sought to replace a traditional Judeo-Christian society with one embodying atheism and appeals to "reason and science" (cough - Communism and National Socialism - also known as Nazism) it resorted to violence that consumed its own offspring and achieved none of its initial objectives.
Check out the following link for more info on the crazy lengths to which secular humanism pushed France's revolutionaries.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Republican_Calendar
I know wikipedia :-(
Ryan| 12.6.10 @ 9:16AM
The problem with such thinking is that it's built on "sinking sand" as it were. If there is no solid basis for morality, then there is no solid basis for law - even popular consent.
The only thing that would keep me from murdering and stealing wouldn't be Divine repercussion and standards - it would be the desire to not get caught.
Alan Brooks| 12.7.10 @ 3:21AM
You talk of morality yet you wasted 12 years with the amoral Bush league.
Thanks for nothing.
Stammon| 12.7.10 @ 4:07AM
Up early for stupidity again I see.
tpaine| 12.7.10 @ 7:00AM
The same GWB that now has a higher approval rating than Obama? That Bush?
Detroit Guy| 12.7.10 @ 8:02PM
"The same GWB that now has a higher approval rating than Obama? That Bush?"
This is a bad argument. Please do not make it. The question placed on the table by the poster concerns Bush's morality. Bush's approval ratings have nothing to do with it.
I happen to think the poster is wrong; I don't think Bush was amoral. (Or immoral, for that matter, if that's what he meant to spell.) But the fact that Bush has the approval of X percentage of people who picked up a phone and answered a poll question has nothing to do with it. It's irrelevant.
Quit worrying about teams. This isn't sports. It's not a game. There is right, and there is wrong, and that's all that matters.
Alan Brooks| 12.7.10 @ 10:58PM
Hey! I didn't fart the dumb and meaningless comment above! Someone stole my cyber ID!
Rocky| 12.7.10 @ 7:54AM
I think therefore I am. This expression of self-awareness is the only thing you can reason without faith. Everything else MUST come through your sense gates (touch, feel, smell, hearing, sight). And anyone who has been to a magic act knows these can be fooled. And if you’ve seen the movie Matrix, well, how do you know you’re not in a vat plugged into a computer simulation. We all have faith in something….many of us have faith in God. Myself, I’ve met Him. So you’ll have to judge, am I a liar, a lunatic, or have I placed my faith in the Creator. Seems our Founding Fathers believed in a Creator when they spoke about Nature’s Laws and Natures Creator.
So ask yourself…are you in the Matrix? Aren’t you really basing your reality on what you believe, on your own faith? How do you know the facts of reality? Do you have faith in your senses? In your reasoning? Are you really that much more “perceptive than the rest of us”?
God chose the foolish things to make the wisdom of those wise in their own eyes meaningless, to frustrate the intellect of the intellectual. I once asked God why He doesn’t just appear before each of us, certainly He could convince everyone to believe in Him. Why choose the foolish way? He answered me by asking if I’d ever been in love. I said, ‘yes, of course, you know I have’. He then asked me how that looked. I realized that it looked foolish, and that God had chosen love.
Facts and truth aren’t the same thing. Your facts are always missing some vital information…but truth, well now, when you find it, it rings like the bell of liberty in your heart.
You go on and mock faith…even though it’s clear you can’t reason but one thing, you exist, without some measure of faith in something.
Ken (Old Texican)| 12.7.10 @ 6:50PM
Rocky,
Splendid post...and welcome to the conversations here.
I do have one thought. My favorite existentialist is Victor Frankl... He said "I hurt, therefore I am".
Mark James| 12.8.10 @ 9:17PM
Actually we are kind of "plugged into a Matrix". God placed our spirits here without His direct intervention at our request (The Fall). We are three dimensionally bound time-ordered beings with no residual direct remembrance of The Almighty given the free will to choose Him or not. Choosing Him and living forever in His world is our ultimate test. It's very much like the movie but with actual real consequences.
Pat Shelbourne| 12.7.10 @ 8:32AM
"The fool says in his heart, 'there is no God'. 'Nuff said. Even the all-mighty Body of Science has held some pretty out-moded ideas. But the eternal truths of the Bible will outlast all these "do it how I see it in my finite perspective of reason" proponents. Do not scoff at the wisdom of the ages.
Evangeline Brabant| 12.7.10 @ 10:32AM
Tom is naive. I would rather base my "morality"on a document that reflects the unbelievable genius of the Founders and decades of Amendments approved by our citizens than by some lofty nonsense about "man's ability to advance his interests on the basis of reason and experience?"
Which men, and why would we trust to self interest?
No scholars of the Constitution would make the flat statement that the U.S. Constitution is based on a religious creed, it was based on amazing philosophical concepts developed over two millenniums. It is people like Tom who think that our roots and our amazing document should twist in the wind with the whims of whoever is in power at the moment.
Detroit Guy| 12.7.10 @ 8:13PM
You clearly are confused about the nature of Tom's posts. He did not write nor imply that the Constitution should be subject to passing "whims."
I would suggest you reread his posts, because you obviously misinterpreted something the first time.
cactusbob| 12.15.10 @ 12:27PM
The Constitution, as with any other law, rule, or regulation, does not come with its automatic enforcement arm or militia; its enforcement is dependent on PEOPLE to make it work. With the current abuse, the people who are in the position of enforcing the Constitution are loyal to the one who is violating it. There will be no enforcement until enough of a public uprising takes place to restore its provisions. The Tea Party movement promotes that uprising, not by taking up arms but by electing Congressmen suitable to the task. That is a big job, since it depends on convincing Paul that Peter won't always have unlimited funds to be redistributed. A lot of Pauls won't care, but many will, unless the NYT and the liberal media can convince them that they deserve the public largess.
Red Phillips | 12.6.10 @ 11:48AM
Ken please don't act like you support strict constitutionalism. If you did you wouldn't support the US policing the world. Isn't it you who is always invoking "Pax Americana?" Please find maintaining "Pax Americana" in the Constitution for me.
This is an excellent article, but unfortunately a lot of modern day conservatives support constitutionalism only when it rhetorically suits them. They are horrified by the implications of actually following it. If we were following the intent of the Founders the vast majority of our defense would be provided for by independent state militias.
Ken (Old Texican)| 12.6.10 @ 2:19PM
Hi Red.
You are such a silly sophomore.
You just keep hanging up the same ole' scare-crow.
(straw-man)
Let me be as clear as I can for the folks of good will here. (You evidently will never get it.)
WE NEED A FIRST CLASS MILITARY...DUMB ASS.
You just don't get it and you never will get it. (Muskets are out of fashion, dumb-ass.)
Red Phillips | 12.6.10 @ 2:53PM
So Ken are you saying that times have changed and render the original intent of the Constitution unworkable? Hmmm... where have I heard that argument before? Wait a minute ... it's on the tip of my tongue. That's right ... I remember now ... liberals/progressives make that argument. :-)
And there is no reason to get profane just because I am undermining your worldview that "conservatives" support world policing.
WJ| 12.6.10 @ 4:48PM
The Old Texican is a courageous internet hero. Calling people dumbasses and idiots left and right, you would think he has a pair of cajones as big as Dallas. Perhaps we should call them cyber balls because I have a feeling Old Texican is just as unable to defend his arguments physically as he is intellectually.
Ken (Old Texican)| 12.6.10 @ 6:36PM
WJ,
that was funny...(if ignorant).
Yes, I am an internet hero. Every word I have written is on file. Every word I write in the future is on file.
My newest bestseller is on file. www.texassaidno.com
And yep, (smile), I'm old now. I don't whip arses anymore. I'm still a passable shot however. Ah the great equalizer. Pull a trigger and end a monster when necessary.
I have invited the feds, and their terrorist buddies onto my front porch with my book mentioned above.
Thank you for the medal.
Clint| 12.6.10 @ 7:08PM
Uh Oh ! Kenny The Chickenhawk Is Talkin' Trash.
Ken (old Texican)| 12.6.10 @ 8:03PM
Hey Clint,
How are you doing in your new IP address?
One phone-call from me to TAS and you have to move...again.
However, I just love running circles around you so that the folks can be reminded of "quality content" versus empty headed snarkines, heh.
I placed my redacted bio here once. That is sufficient to most folks. You of course either missed it or have ignored it.
A fellow poster pursued it some. Found over 300,000 hits on my real name...in the real world.
(heh, he doesn't know about the other 3 million "hits" prior to the internet's invention.)
The communists, (pardon the shorthand), know -precisely who I am.
One problem: I know precisely who you are.
You probably need to change screen-names and IP address again and clean up your act.
How many years have YOU spent in the third world?
Yeah, I am a chicken hawk. How many bullet holes do you carry, you chicken-poop wimp?
Heh, I forgot to duck twice.
Clint| 12.6.10 @ 8:09PM
Hey Kenny The Chickenhawk Don't Talk Your Trash Talkin' Gutless Crap , Bring It Girl !
Clint| 12.6.10 @ 8:45PM
I Say You're A Deceiver, Who Never Served In Our Military.
What Was Your MOS, Sport ?
Hmmmm ?
Ken (Old Texican)| 12.7.10 @ 7:05AM
Hi again, Clint.
My "MOS" was CB....as I have often posted here before.
I had the honor of building bunkers, bridges, and other accomodations for many of the fine men who post here...as a Civilian Builder.
I was honored to fill some sand-bags for them.
Laura| 12.6.10 @ 8:32AM
The Federalist Papers were the founders published arguments in support of ratifying the US Constitution. This was the sales pitch published, which refuted the "objectors" (Patrick Henry and others) statements that the provisions were too vague and overbroad. The objectors were particularly concerned regarding the sentence in Art 1, Section 8 containing an allusion to the General Welfare. James Madison masterfully shot holes in the objectors arguments in Federalist 41, as the powers enumerated were "separated by no long pause than a semicolon" It can now be said that the objectors were in fact correct. This is the history that has been lost in these United States.
Vern Crisler| 12.6.10 @ 8:03PM
Pish-posh. The founders can't be held responsible for modern judical activism. Remember, even the theoretician of the revolution, Thomas Jefferson, came around to supporting the Constitution.
Henry Miller| 12.7.10 @ 6:51AM
It's more a matter of the venality of politicians than it is of "judicial activism," and that appears to be something the authors of the Constitution badly underestimated.
Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 12.6.10 @ 8:44AM
The New York Times prints all sorts of drivel.
It would be more interesting to find out why certain people are more concerned about this drivel then that drivel. Drivel on!
Louis Jenkins| 12.6.10 @ 8:51AM
"The entire American system of government is premised on the idea that delegated defined, specific powers to Washington."
Our District of Criminals has led the nation down the road to serfdom. We are no longer free as we once were. But as long as we must pass bills first inorder to then read them we must also buy pigs in pokes. That's the major problem. Far too many pigs.
RCV| 12.6.10 @ 7:15PM
We are far freer now than we have ever been, and certainly more free than at our country's inception. Then, a sizable portion of our population was held in slavery, one-half of our adult white population (females) had no say in government, and many white males were disenfranchised by property requirements. Several states taxed everyone to support a particular established church. When Congress passed the alien and sedition act, many Americans were jailed for simply criticizing government officials. It's a myth to pretend we were freer then.
The One Who Runs Like a Duck| 12.6.10 @ 8:39PM
We took a shellacking, RCV. You are exactly right. Who cares what that stupid piece of paper says. We tell them when they are happy and what makes them happy. Tax cuts for the rich. We are closing Gitmo. Don't ask, don't tell. Cap and trade in Cancun. We are out of Iraq. It is almost 2011 and then we will be out of Afghanistan. Change you can believe in stupid.
Len| 12.6.10 @ 9:16PM
Unless one is an unborn child, then one can be done away with so as to not inconvenience anyone.
Yes, you despise God, and prove it with every comment here.
RCV| 12.7.10 @ 2:56AM
So at least you agree that those humans who are born are freer. Oh, I forgot, you're the guy who thinks the Constitution sucks, and sucked from the start. You think no generation can bind another. Why stop there? Why should people's notions in one year bind anyone else the following year? Your anarchism is simply unworkable, Len. Unless rights are enforceable, they are meaningless. And they can only be enforced against the whims of the moment by a binding Constitution. As for God, Len, it is you with your constant defense of slavery and the glorification of its preservation by the South, who disgusts God. Jesus weeps at the thought that you pretend to be his defender.
Len| 12.7.10 @ 11:25AM
Silly RCV, can't help your lying. I have never once defended slavery, that is your constant strawman you use to argue against me. As for being freer, I only addressed one issue to refute your contention that we are freer now today.
To go farther though, to contend we are freer merely because some people are not held in bondage, but merely slaughtered by the millions is the height of absurdity and blindness.
As for slavery one could the North Koreans are free (not slaves), because they are not literally the property of others. You never can follow a premise to it's logical conclusion.
Free? The product of my labor is heavily taxed and given to others, either through the constant printing of money enabling the wealthy and influential to profit from it, or to keep bureaucrats/salarymen happy by doing nothing productive, or whatever particular is clamoring for it.
Free? I am told I cannot even drink the milk of my choice, let alone decide what else I may decide to put in my body.
Free? My right to defend myself is taken away by infringing on my right to own and carry weapons of self-defense.
Free? The government claims the right to control food production, seize property, even take away my gold or silver should they need it.
Free? Developers are told they will only receive permits if they set aside a certain amount of housing for lower income people.
I could go on, but I don't know if plain truth will ever get through to you.
RCV| 12.7.10 @ 11:34AM
Two questions, Len, which you always seem to dance around. Please answer them directly:
1. What society and in what time period, do you consider to be freer than ours at the present time.
2. Describe the legal and political structure of your ideal society.
Len| 12.7.10 @ 1:45PM
Before answering those, I will, just a brief example of we are not free here.
http://reason.com/archives/2010/12/07/the-war-on-cameras
RCV| 12.8.10 @ 7:16PM
...and the ansers to the two questions are?
RCV| 12.8.10 @ 7:22PM
...and the answers to the two questions are?
Negro X| 12.6.10 @ 11:07PM
RCV,
We expect so little from you and you never fail to satisfy.
RCV| 12.7.10 @ 2:58AM
"We"? What are you, Queen Victoria? The Pope? And get a grown-up moniker.
skip| 12.7.10 @ 2:00PM
R(ancid repugnant repulsive)
C(ontemptible contrary caustic)
V(ile virulent vacuous vomitus in vast volumes)
S.L. Toddard| 12.6.10 @ 9:06AM
As recently as the early 20th century, the consensus was that it would require a constitutional amendment to give the federal government the power to ban the sale, manufacture, and transportation of alcoholic beverages. In 1933, it took a second constitutional amendment to repeal this power. Today, if Washington were inclined to ban Demon Rum it would be justified under the pretext of regulating interstate commerce.
Consider the constitutional amendments that ended slavery. Slavery had a much bigger impact on interstate commerce than most things the federal government today claims the power to regulate under the interstate commerce clause. Yet even people who in the context of those times held fairly expansive views of the role of government did not think the interstate commerce clause gave the federal government the power to end the massive human rights abuse of slavery.
The slavery example proves that the Constitution itself was not perfect. That's why the Framers included an amendment process. But it also shows that even our political class once took seriously the idea that their actions must be authorized or justified by constitutional text to be legitimate. Caplan treats this belief as a form of madness.
A brilliant and unassailable argument.
Petronius| 12.6.10 @ 9:08AM
The government is ignoring all of us who swore an Oath to uphold, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States as written and defined by the Men who composed it, not them.
Ken (Old Texican)| 12.6.10 @ 9:56AM
Folks,
Another thought if I may.
The Founders certainly did not believe they had created a perfect compact. They made provision for ammendment...but made it very difficult without a huge super-majority of voters in what? three quarters of the States?
When we begin thinking about the concept of "impeachment", I wonder if we should start with the federal judges. Even easier, have Congress "dis-establish" many of the sorry courts and start fresh. The same with federal prosecutors who use their office for political witch-hunts.
Al Adab| 12.6.10 @ 10:46AM
That the courts often discover "rights" hidden in the penumbra is certainly a symptom of the problem. The real cancer lies with those who believe (progressives and technocrats) that an expert class can manipulate or manage better than free markets. Unlimited fiat power now resides with each and every Federal agency. The federal register exceeds 75,000 pages of regulations. I leave it to you readers to decide if that situation makes us more or less free. Nonetheless, who are these people to decide what we deserve, need or how we should behave?
tpaine| 12.7.10 @ 7:05AM
Hear!! Hear!!
The newspapers didn't report it very loudly, but look what happened to the Iowa Supreme Court when then threw out the citizens vote on homosexual marriage.
Bunky| 12.7.10 @ 7:38AM
Oh, the libs were squealing!!!
The judiciary isn't independent anymore!
The judiciary isn't independent anymore!
I hope Iowans do not forget the other Iowa "justices"
when their turn comes up.
Brian Mc| 12.6.10 @ 10:18AM
What we lack is a simple litmus test. Forget all the 'talk' concerning interpretation of our founding documents. The twisting and turning respectfully leads to socialism.
Here is one that is so simple that quite possibly, even Pelosi can understand: If said bill, or proposed or existing 'agency', whether in committee or stated before the chamber, imposes indebtedness on future generations, it is deemed to be "unconstitutional"; no further argument can be promoted in its defense. Break out the calculators and get busy. This Republic is worth saving.
Detroit Guy| 12.7.10 @ 8:34PM
You have the right idea, but the wrong proposal.
"Future generations" is not a legal standard, or even a precise rhetorical one. What is a "future generation," anyway? A human being born tomorrow will be a legal adult on Dec. 8, 2028. Is he part of a future generation? A human being born on Dec. 8, 1992, will be a legal adult tomorrow. Is he part of a future generation?
Richard Baker| 12.6.10 @ 11:11AM
Tom:
And what was it John Adams said about our Constitution and morality, hmmm? Your comment was spoken like a true '60s mind full of pomposity and foolishness.
Tom Anderson| 12.6.10 @ 12:28PM
I would simply point out to you that John Adams was not the only Founding Father. But in any case you wrong Adams to assume that he would not have changed his ideas regarding religion once he say that its fundamental premises were unsustainable in light of modern science.
Adams was too intelligent to believe, after Darwin, and the development of plate techtonics, that the earth came into existence 6000 years ago.
skip| 12.6.10 @ 1:52PM
I will take my faith in Christ and Christianity over your faith in Darwin and evolution.
Tom Anderson | 12.6.10 @ 3:13PM
You completely miss my point. I have no "faith" in Darwin and evolution. Evolutionary biological science simply offers the best explanation for the phenomena of the natural world. If it were possible to be believe, as a scientific proposition, that all-powerful, personal, creative deity created the "heavens and the earth", and that you could develop even one rational argument in favor of creation, then you argument would deserve a respectful attention.
But the so-called Argument from Design no longer works since evolutionary theory makes the deity an unnecessary assumption. There simply is no reason to believe in a deity.
PJ| 12.6.10 @ 6:09PM
How very sad that you pick & choose what ever idea that matches your philosophy of the nonexistence of a deity. Obviously you are not into physics.
Maybe you should watch: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EN2oc7l1mPU
or visit
http://www.magisreasonfaith.org/. -----> Fr Robert Spitzer, the Director of Magis Center, is a PhD in physics.
I will pray that you become enlightened!
skip| 12.6.10 @ 10:06PM
C'mon.
Evolutionary theory is not scientific fact.
Your 'faith' is that rational reason based on experience has evolved out of accidental random events.
The Bible and science are not at odds in any event. Science continually accumulates more truths none of which ever contradict The
Divine Creator The Lord God Almighty.
In any event if I should be wrong then no biggy and if you are wrong you are completely totally supremely fucked.
If The Devine Deity is as improbable the truth behind all creation as correctly calling 'tails' two hundred fifty thousand consecutive coin flips, then Random Accident is as improbable the truth behind all creation as correctly calling 'heads' eight hundred trillion consecutive coin flips.
Tom Anderson | 12.7.10 @ 10:33AM
I never claimed evolutionary theory "is a fact." I treat it as such, but its status as knowledge is the same as all other well-substantiated theories--it is a theory, subject to future modification in light of new knowledge.
That said, it explains natural phenomena in a way that makes the fewest assumptions. There is no need to suppose the existence supra-natural sources of knowledge to arrive at its conclusions, tentative though they may be regarded from a purely scientific and skeptical point of view.
The doctrine of god--theology--is an add-on. It is something people may wish to believe, but it is not necessary in order to understand natural phenomena. That was my point.
Before Darwin, we really didn't have a theory of natural phenomena, which is why philosophers and even scientists found theology sometimes useful. That is no longer the case.
I am not now speaking of physics, which has for quite some time been the scientific source for Idealist religious philosophies. However, physics by its very nature today is comprehensible only in terms of mathematical equations and highly speculative theories so complex that most physicists hardly understand them very well.
Physics today is a highly unsettled arena of inquiry, so I wouldn't put too much emphasis on it as a source of religious belief.
Gmason| 12.7.10 @ 11:52AM
"--it is a theory, subject to future modification in light of new knowledge."
It is a theory, and not a very good one at that. Many major predictions that Darwin himself said would be neccessary to confirm it, have not appeared, and yet rather that discard the theory, they just keep trying to find new ways to make it so.
If your truly interested in evidence against two great books are:
Darwins Black Box - Michael Behe
Uncommon Dissent - which is a collaboration, many well known scientists, including evolutionists who have problems with the theory.
William Barr| 12.7.10 @ 1:38PM
To: Tom Anderson
You justify Adolph Hitler and Joseph Stalin, both strong believers man’s ability to find the “good”, man’s moral compass. No religious base mass murder comes close in proportion to the MORAL based killing justified by these two men.
Appeal to morality base on man’s rational view of the world is a leap of faith no different than the religious leap of faith. You have no justification for your faith, you believe it. If the results of the faith are the test, I will bet my religious based morality on any historical religious figure to justify my view compared to your non religious based morality on modern figures starting with the French Revolution; including Marxist, communist, fascist thinkers and leaders, all the logical outcome of your that is man determine morality. And prove to me my religious based morality is not as valid as yours, if not worse. You can not because mirrors do exist.
Yet the moral arrogance of those like you is more extreme than any religious view ever expressed.
You just do not like the concept of God, no big deal; just do not tell me my religious morality is wrong. Your morality based on results alone has much more to explain to justify.
Mark Caswell| 12.7.10 @ 2:28PM
Evolution is NOT "a well substantiated theory". There is no evidence that substantiates anything about it except cross specie similarities. It provides a sophomoric explanation that removes God from the picture thereby providing some Psychological comfort to those whose pride prevents them from submitting their wills to God. Physics has been going through some major changes due to the speed of discovery as we come to understand better the reality in which we live. More often than not, physics finds itself confronting the reality of God and if you spend some time looking into it and appreciate the fact that matter isn't really what you think it is but rather overwhelmingly open space dominated by interposing forces that give the appearance of solidity and substance, you might then wonder how such a universe could come into being, how could these forces be so balanced in their relationship to provide the order that exists EXCEPT THAT THEY WERE THE WORK OF A CREATOR GOD.
Nick| 12.7.10 @ 4:07PM
Mr. Anderson,
You wrote, "The doctrine of [G]od--theology--is an add-on. It is something people may wish to believe, but it is not necessary in order to understand natural phenomena. That was my point."
It is neither necessary to believe in Darwinian, materialistic macro-evolution to "understand natural phenomena."
One can be a successful biologist, geneticist, physician, veternarian, etc., without believing in one tenet of evolution. Having the belief that species evolved over millions of years has no practical use in the applied sciences. Or, what is observed in physical world.
Essentially, subjects like macro-evolution, paleontology, and theoretical physics are mostly creations of very imaginative minds, by people who could easily have gotten jobs in Hollywood writing scripts for TV shows like "Star Trek: TNG" or movies like "Jurassic Park."
Speculating on how T-Rex hunted, or how to travel at the speed of light, will never lead to the next version of the MRI, or new treatments for cancer.
Just like geologists stating as a "fact" that the Earth is 4 billion years old, or how old this and that strata of rock is, still doesn't help them find oil and natural gas deposits. It is observed data, and even then, it is still a hit and miss propostion.
Quiche Lorraine| 12.8.10 @ 5:04AM
It's amazing to me how the original bacterium, floating around, bumping into stuff, had finally had enough of all that bumping into stuff and decided to conjure themselves some eyes so they could avoid these annoying occurrences. Given that they arrived on the planet with no brain, it was a little tricky to make the necessary adjustments. But, nonetheless, they eventually thought long and hard and inherited the traits that they desired in themselves, onto the following generation. When asked what the hardest part of the process was, the bacterium replied, What!! I don't understand you 'cause I can't hear you!! but I'm workin' on a little thing I like to call "ears" next week.
You see, how would it be possible for a single cell organism, or any organism for that matter to inherit traits to it's offspring that it would have no way of knowing were beneficial, or even available or possible. If you were born deaf and had no human contact, would you know that you had a hearing problem? Probably not, and you're a multi-celled Human Being! :-))
Quiche Lorraine| 12.8.10 @ 5:25AM
The human eye:
http://www.99main.com/~charlief/Blindness.htm
The Human ear:
http://www.ihelpyouhear.com/how-we-hear/index.html
Should have been easy to create one when the necessity arose, don't you think?
Don't even get me started on the brain!
RCV| 12.8.10 @ 7:15PM
Natural Selection doesn't require cognition to work. Characteristics that promote the survival of the organism are passed on to the organism's progeny; those that inhibit its survival in its given environment aren't passed on. This is what shapes the evolutionary development. If you want a broader understanding of how the process works, read one of Richard Dawkin's books on evolution. He's an idiot on theology, but elegant on the science of biological evolution.
NeilBJ| 12.6.10 @ 11:26AM
Re: "[T]he Constitution has been reduced to Robert's Rules of Order."
Exactly! A constitution is by its very intent a limiting document. Democracy unchecked becomes tyranny.
This ought to be the number one rule of constitutional interpretation: If a given interpretation of a clause of the constitution leads to an increase in the power of the federal government, it ought to be dismissed out of hand.
People have come to expect the federal government to solve every problem. They forget the part of the Constitution that says powers not delegated to the federal government are reserved to the states.
The current health care bill is a case in point. It is unconstitutional in its entirety. There is nothing to prevent each state from enacting its own health care bill, just as Massachusetts did. That worked out very well, didn't it?
But that is my point. When each state can be its own laboratory for whatever legislation it chooses to enact, other states can learn from the experiment. Better that one state errs in its legislative endeavors than a whole nation.
That is the ultimate check on the exercise of power. If you live in state that is no longer governed to your liking, you can move to a state that is. Yes, this is easier to put forth as a principle than it is to carry out in practice. Nevertheless, I would rather have this option available than to have to live under an unchecked federal government.
Red Phillips | 12.6.10 @ 11:40AM
Excellent article.
George S| 12.6.10 @ 12:10PM
Of course the Constitution is a bar to the "danger represented by solutions." Does North Korea or Cuba have any problems funding public health care or social security? Does Syria or Iran have any problems funding the gold plated health care and retirement benefits of their automobile industry retirees? Of course not; those pesky substantive limitations imposed by the Constitution do not apply over there, hence the freedom those people enjoy are the envy of the world. Because their leaders were unhampered in finding solutions.
So are we, too, ready to join the North Koreans, the Cubans, the Somalis, the Russians and the mid easterners in imposing the same solutions? The only way that can be done is if we, the people, accept the unconstitutional government overreach in order to raid the Treasury for a few trinkets in benefits. Don't for a minute think that FDR, Johnson and Obama underestimated the public's desire for a safety net. It is us who tacitly approved our government's disregard for the Constitution in return for a monthly check, protection from economic cycles, favorable taxation, protection from imports, a minimum wage and other labor benefits, farm subsidies, free education, and other protections from the unforgiving free market that mercilessly dispatches the lazy and unproductive into poverty.
Richard Baker| 12.6.10 @ 12:42PM
Tom:
You sound like Ayn Rand.
Len| 12.6.10 @ 12:59PM
Some things to think about;
1) The US constitution was based on fraud, or at least well meaning but ultimately damaging ignorance. Why do I say such a thing? It claims to be an act by the people acting through their particular polity in agreement with the people of the other various polities (preamble, Article 7). Yet it provides no legitimate process for renewal, or returning the power to the people, for no one generation has the right to bind the next, and when any institution gets going it is harder to stop it than it is to start it. To have a provision for every 20 yrs. or so to revisit the instrument of government makes it more legitimate, and makes it more difficult for those acting as our agents to entrench themselves in their positions of power.
I would also add that even though the states made the US constitution acting in conventions that it was the people could never be knowledgeable enough or informed enough to understand what was being done by those who more educated and and had greater influence due to their wealth.
OK, yes I understand some of government was needed, and so there was much compromise, but that never legitimizes a majority to rule over a minority.
2) The US constitution was deliberately vague to provide room for corruption. Yes, many argued that to add too much would turn it into a codex, or book of statutes, rather than being the framework of government, with the appropriate limitations imposed. I would argue that it could be more refined and the powers more defined without being much longer.
3) The US constitution was framed with the seeds for tyranny within it. One example being eminent domain, whereby someone having never consented to what others have done, may have force used against him to deprive him of his property (just compensation not being just to a person's right to dispose of his property only as he would see fit).
The provision for the other states to come to the aid of a state where the people are seeking to overthrow that government. This allows those entrenched in power within a state to claim republicanism and continue to oppress the people of that state aided by those outside that polity.
4)Who ultimately is the judge of the rightness of acts by the federal government. This goes back to the US constitution not having sufficient clause to restrain those in power, and not having properly defined barriers between the state governments, and the federal government.
5) Allowing for direct taxation! The claim was made that due to the states being remiss in paying their proper share of the debt incurred by the war, that this was needed. Yet, there was not enough specie in all the states at that time to cover the debt, so this is a false premise. It is also a seed allowing for the growth and eventual subsumption of the states by allowing the power of the purse to be held by the federal government.
These are but a few of the great errors in the US constitution that allowed for eventual tyranny.
Vern Crisler| 12.6.10 @ 8:11PM
The Constitution was well within the philosophical principles of compact theory. Each generation accepts the compact implicity by not engaging in revolution. Still, Madisonian constitutionalism had the foresight to allow for peaceful revolution -- the Amendment process.
The US Constitution stands athwart tyranny yelling stop! However, the judicial activists have use the bogus incorporation theory to undermine constitutionalism. Don't blame the Constitution for the failure of the so-called "greatest generation" to protect and defend the Constitution against judicial miscreants.
Len| 12.6.10 @ 11:29PM
Right Vern, we implicitly accept tyranny until it's so bad we must resort to violence and bloodshed, that's reasonable. So rather than providing the means to insure the people have a say, and to do so in as bloodless a manner as possible, we set in motion a process that ends up sliding toward ever increasing oppression, and the people eventually rising up to take the boot off their neck.
Have you considered that many philosophies put forth are in error, and based on faulty premises?
Don't blame the constitution? What a silly statement, a constitution is the product of people, and I am pointing out how those people failed to truly provide for liberty.
E| 12.7.10 @ 1:10PM
Len you're an idiot.
FBanta| 12.7.10 @ 8:16AM
Len;
5. Article I, Section 9 originally stated: "No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid..". This is a key protection eliminated by the 16th Amendment. Prior to that time, the federal government was funded by tarriffs on exports: which of course caused Lincoln's War when he feared that by secession of those States generating that revenue, would eliminate the funding of his precious "internal improvements" (wasteful government spending that enriched him personally).
4. The Senate was created to represent the States and limit the power of the federal government to overpower the States. The House was created to represent the Citizens.
3. Eminent Domain was intended to protect the Citizen from arbitrary confiscation of property, which it did quite well until the Courts were corrupted.
2. The COTUS addresses the corruptability of human nature, not administrative statutes.
1. The entire structure of the Constitutional federal government was intended to make it virtually impossible for any branch to abuse their authorities. The Legislature is directed to make laws as necessary; consistent with the COTUS; The Judiciary is responsible to assure that all federal, State, and local laws comply with the COTUS; and the Executive is directed to assure that the laws (compliant with the COTUS) are faithfully executed. Every federal officer is required to assure that the COTUS is not violated.
If the COTUS is not violated, the power of the Sovereign Citizen is not violated. Impeachment and recall are the (unused) methods available to remove from federal office any who violate the COTUS. Contrary to popular misconception, federal judges do not have life-time appointment, but clearly "hold their Offices during good behavior".
It is our failure as Citizens that has permitted the corruption of our federal government. Fortunately, the COTUS gives us the ability to rectify that.
Our job is made most difficult by the 17th Amendment that made Senators independent of the States and subject to purchase by monied interests.
The COTUS was structured specifically to preclude federal tyranny. If you want to understand why it has been corrupted, read Lincoln's speech to the Springfield Young Men's Lyceum of 1838.
Andrew| 12.7.10 @ 1:54PM
FBANTA,
I believe you meant imports, not exports, as the Constitution says, "No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State."
FBanta| 12.8.10 @ 8:24AM
Andrew: Read the COTUS. I even gave you the Article and Section. I meant what I said.
vip2020 | 12.6.10 @ 3:48PM
Cheers for taking the effort and time to produce something that is invoking
Vern Crisler| 12.6.10 @ 8:15PM
The problem is Progressivism. Progressives did not like fixed rules or fixed constitutions, or fixed morality. That's why they preferred direct democracy (initiatives & recalls).
In their view, whatever the morality of the people was at any given time was now the standard, not fixed constitutional boundaries.
It was the Progressives who sold out the Constitution and sealed the deal with the incorporation theory.
Henry Miller| 12.7.10 @ 6:42AM
It's been a long, long, time since since I've read such an emotionally satisfying piece. Mr Antle is spot-on.
FBanta| 12.7.10 @ 7:33AM
Dear Mr. Caplan:
First of all, the term ‘Constitutional Conservatism” is a redundancy: there are only two categories of people in America: Constitutionalists and Anti-Constitutionalists. Any other classification is inconsequential. “Constitutional Liberal” is an oxymoron.
To understand what you call Constitutional Conservatives (rightly Constitutionalists) the first requirement is to read and understand the Constitution (COTUS). With the Bill of Rights (BOR) thrown in for good measure, it’s about 7700 words; or the length of a decent sophomore term paper. I have yet to discover a Liberal /Progressive who understands the COTUS.
Candidate Obama decried that “…the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties: … Says what the Federal government can’t do to you, but doesn’t say what the Federal government …must do on your behalf…”. VP Biden doesn’t even know which Articles define the authorities and responsibilities of each branch of the federal government after he has spent a life-time in government employment! Such ignorance of the document that creates and defines the federal government is inexcusable! Mr. Caplan are you too ignorant of the COTUS?
The foundation of American Exceptionalism is expressed in our Declaration of Independence: “…We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,…”
In other words, we believe that our rights come from our Creator; and that we create civil government to assure that our inalienable rights are not violated.
This simple objective is described in the COTUS: “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”
The Constitution of the United States (COTUS) was created by Sovereign Citizens to define and enumerate the authorities and responsibilities delegated to the federal government to protect our inalienable rights: only this and nothing more.
The BOR was amended to the COTUS “…at the time of …adopting the Constitution,… in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added…” According to the 9th and 10th Amendments, any responsibility or authority not specifically delineated in the COTUS is specifically and intentionally denied to the federal government. Got that Mr. President?
Mr. Caplan, you will not find a single mention of “equality” in the COTUS. You may have us confused with France: they do believe in equality. In America we believe only that we are created equal and are therefore entitled to “equal justice under law”: or at least we did until we started gerrymandering our laws to placate and politically manipulate myriad special interest ‘pseudo-minorities’ (clearly un-Constitutional by the way).
Americans who support tyranny are those who expect someone else to provide for them under penalty of law: who think that the government has a right to confiscate private property without just compensation; who believe that it is okay to murder one human being for the convenience of another (5th Amendment be damned eh?); who believe they are above the law; who believe that gender or race or lifestyle entitle them to advantages over others not like them.
Read the COTUS Mr. Caplan and you will learn that we elect a federal government to accomplish the delineated responsibilities, within their clearly defined and limited authorities: and to ‘preserve, protect, and defend the COTUS’: only this and nothing more.
You won’t find anything in the COTUS about political parties, liberals, progressives, socialists; nothing about ‘popular mandates’ or ‘political mandates’; or PACs; or lobbyists; or political contributions. You’ll find nothing about gerrymandering voting districts to favor one group over another. You’ll find nothing about entitling representatives to be excluded from the laws they pass to control, or tax, or obligate the Citizens they allegedly serve.
You won’t find in the COTUS any authority for Congressmen to bury us in regulations, mandates and restrictive practices solely to empower themselves to sell exceptions to the highest bidder; accruing for their personal enrichment and empowerment alone.
You won’t find anything about adapting the Constitution because technology changes: the “papers” of a Citizen are protected the same if written with quill on parchment or written in electrons on magnetic media; the government has no more right to search and seizure without a properly defined and justified warrant if a Citizen is in their home or in an airport. You won’t find any support in the COTUS for the concept that a wise Latina is smarter and more qualified to judge than 200 years of Caucasian males; or vice versa.
The COTUS doesn’t need to address technology or popular social fads: it is structured solely to deal with immutable human nature: the understanding that delegated power will always be abused. You should note that the Founders were prescient enough to realize that politicians and public servants are not to be trusted with power or money; and history has proven them wise beyond modern comprehension!
You won’t find anywhere in the Constitution authority for any federal officer to ‘fundamentally transform the USA’: in fact that is a violation of the sacred oath of office required of every federal officer BEFORE they are endowed with any federal authority. Nor will you find any authority for any federal officer to pick and choose the laws that they will ignore or enforce. As the Chief Executive, the president is required to ‘take care that the laws are faithfully executed”.
The offending arrogance is not from those who love, honor, and respect the COTUS; it is from those who trample it: who bend and twist it to fit their warped personal concepts of social justice or elitist privilege. These are the very evils for which our Founders sacrificed everything to eliminate from earthly governance.
The good news for those who don’t like the COTUS or it’s strict constructionist interpretation is that there are more than 200 countries in the world where they can live unencumbered by the COTUS: but the US isn’t one of them! Even better, most of those alternatives offer cradle-to-grave government coddling and universal wealth redistribution! Delta is ready when you are.
So, Mr. Caplan, I suggest that you make a list of everything you think the federal government should do for you and along side each entry, list the Article, Section and paragraph where, in the COTUS the federal government is specifically delegated the authority and responsibility to provide it. Anything you can’t do that for is not a legal authority of the federal government.
I suspect you’ll be happier living somewhere else rather than in an America where Constitutional governance is rightfully restored: but know that you will go with my best wishes and with my prayers for your happiness.
Vincent Smith| 12.7.10 @ 10:08AM
Interesting! Of course any debate should be a two way street. It would be interesting to see your top 10 list of where the federal government has over stepped its authority.
Rockyspoon| 12.7.10 @ 3:39PM
Simply re-read Fbanta's post and do the enumeration yourself--you'll surely get more than 10!
Yosemeti Sam| 12.7.10 @ 4:48PM
One of the pleasures of reading such posts as yours for the extended CLARITY of thought!
Red White and Blue| 12.7.10 @ 8:06AM
There is no doubt the growth of the Federal Goverment and its never ending entitlement spending and other fiscal practises are catching up to us. Two ways of solving this nightmare is a constitutional admendment mandating balanced budgets and no US Military intervention abroad unless the US Congress issues a declaration of war.
FBanta| 12.7.10 @ 8:24AM
Article I, Section 8: "... To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;..."
The Founders were opposed to a standing army because they understood that if it existed, it would be put to use. How smart they were; how dumb we've become.
You will find no authority in the COTUS for any entitlements beyond "equal justice under law"
Vincent Smith| 12.7.10 @ 10:14AM
What is the rebuttal for entitlements and "General Welfare"?
FBanta| 12.8.10 @ 8:35AM
Nowhere in the COTUS are Entitlements authorized. "General Welfare" relates to maintaining a secure, Constitutional environment in which we are safe to Live our Life, enjoy our Liberty, and pursue our happiness. The Founders were adamantly opposed to overbearing government. They realized that taxation is slavery and the first choice of government to exercise complete control over the Citizen: that's why they refused the federal government any authority to directly tax Citizens (foolishly undone by the 16th Amendment).
If it isn't specifically delineated in the COTUS, the federal government has no authority to do it. You won't find Social Security, Medicare, government pensions, etc. in the COTUS because the Founders understood that government will not efficiently manage any such services and giving them such authority would prevent the Citizens from providing for themselves. History has proven their wisdom.
RCV| 12.8.10 @ 7:08PM
Sorry, but as a person who has spent their professional life as a constitutional litigator, you're just plain wrong. Your extremely limited view of the extent of the federal government's authority was rejected by the Supreme Court while those very Founders were alive and walking. Chief Justice John Marshall, an ardent Federalist, began in Marbury v. Madison to delineate what the Federalists had always viewed as the necessary and proper powers of the federal government under the COTUS. Over the objections of the anti-Federalists, who wanted to maintain a weak central government with strong independent states, the Federalists saw the necessity for a strong national government that could lead a growing nation. They got it. The anti-Federalists indeed objected to the COTUS for the very reasons that tea party proponents now assail the federal government, and they were right in their view of what the COTUS would presage. But that's the course we took, and that's the very reason we are today the United States of America, a free, propsperous and dominant country.
skip| 12.9.10 @ 4:11PM
Shocking.
On 12/7/10 at 7:33 am FBanta posted a classic.
And the r(ancid) lifelong (c)onstitutional authority's (v)ewpoint is the declaration that FBanta is wrong.
Shocking.
Eddie Willers| 12.7.10 @ 9:27AM
Let's hope that something akin to the Reformation is going on here. Instead of just going along with the conventional wisdom, people are actually reading the Constitution! This is the difference between Christine O'Donnell and those who laughed at her when she said that separation of church and state is not in the Constitution--literally, it's not. The Constitution is written for the same reason that the Bible was translated into the vernacular--so that the common man can whip out his copy and read it to see if the federal government's action is consistent with the text.
FBanta| 12.8.10 @ 8:37AM
Most disturbing is that the laughter came from an audience of law students who should know better. But then again, if Obama was a 'Constitutional Law lecturer', imagine the mis-information his pupils received@
Billy Peeler| 12.7.10 @ 10:13AM
Nobody is really confused about the Constitution. It's just that both parties want to ignore it at times, and are always hoping that SCOTUS will "interpret" away the parts they wish to disregard.
FBanta| 12.8.10 @ 8:38AM
The parties don't 'hope', they load the SCOTUS with lackeys who promote their point of view, rather than protect the COTUS.
FBanta| 12.8.10 @ 8:39AM
The parties don't 'hope', they load the SCOTUS with lackeys who promote their point of view, rather than protect the COTUS.
Robert Thorpe | 12.7.10 @ 10:43AM
Terrific article.
The people and the states have Article V Constitutional authority to promote, pass and ratify new amendments.
For far too long, the federal government has eroded state’s and individual rights while plunging us into unimaginable debt. It is time to exercise our Article V rights!
Contact your state representatives and tell them that you want them to pass an “application to congress for a convention to propose amendments.”
Robert J. Thorpe, author of “Reclaim Liberty: 3-Step Plan for Restoring our Constitutional Government”
www.reclaimliberty.us, www.Amazon.com, “Laus Deo”
KLD| 12.7.10 @ 1:18PM
You offer no support for the following statement and in no way ties the conclusions to the USC.
"Far from being an obstacle to solving our economic problems, fidelity to the Constitution would have prevented many of them. If the federal government operated within constitutional constraints, we would not stand on the brink of national bankruptcy. Our currency would not be debased. The federal government would not be inflating real estate or investment bubbles. Taxes would be much lower yet there would not be deficits as far as the eye can see.
Instead future generations will be saddled with obligations they never freely chose, struggling to pay for unconstitutional programs that politicians (and, to be frank, many of their constituents) can never summon the courage to reform. Freed from the chains of the Constitution, we are instead enslaved by what Belloc called the "servile state" -- a state we cannot even pay for.
"The anger felt by those who favor constitutional conservatism is potent," Caplan warns at the end of his column. "
Perhaps that's why Msr. Caplan could not conclude waht it is that the far-right means by "constitutional -conservatism," becasue the far-right itself just says the word constitution outloud and assumes that employing the document as it exists in their unspoken understanding would fix all that is ailing the nation.
Mark James| 12.8.10 @ 9:24PM
" the far-right itself just says the word constitution outloud and assumes that employing the document as it exists in their unspoken understanding would fix all that is ailing the nation."
How'd you come up with that little "straw man" argument? The far right states clearly and carefully enumerated what it believes the Constitution states and how that could be used to improve our country. For you to try and demagogue it in such a trivial manner states your inability to reason in complex processes or your willingness to ignore your own intellect.
Toby| 12.7.10 @ 2:12PM
This looks like the same argument Paul Madison has been making for years over at the Federalist Blog:
http://federalistblog.us/2006/....._myth.html
Phil Mella | 12.7.10 @ 2:36PM
The quaint notion that the enumerated powers have a limiting effect on Congress has long been extinguished. Liberals quote McCulloch v. Maryland to justify their nearly limitless application of the Necessary and Proper clause, as well as the Commerce clause.
With the modern Warren court the Constitution has been traduced and despoiled, reduced to little more than a Rorschach test, with Roe v. Wade being the most risible example.
Regards,
Phil Mella
ClearCommentary.com
ncarrizo| 12.7.10 @ 4:48PM
Phil gets it right and those who don't agree are simply depending on Warren era interpretations and not upon actual reading they've done. nuf said!
Nancy Cohen| 12.7.10 @ 10:44PM
Ken: Stop trying to reason with atheists. They are incapable of what the rest of us know. I don't believe in God. I know God. They can never understand that because they have used mind control to shut off something natural to human beings. These people will argue against God until they die. Then, who knows what they will think.
FBanta| 12.8.10 @ 8:43AM
Nancy: There are no non-Believers in Hell. They will think that they should have accepted Him when they had the opportunity.
Nancy Cohen| 12.7.10 @ 10:45PM
PS: BTW, no one taught me to believe in God. It was something I saw in everything around me. I feel sorry for atheists. They miss out on so much.
michigander_sandusky| 12.7.10 @ 11:25PM
To all you folks that belittle "faith." The type of "faith" a true Christian possesses is not some 'pie in the sky' wishful thinking. If a person claims to have faith in God of that stripe he/she is diametrically opposed to God. Hebrews 1:1 tells us: "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." God created man as a being with intelligence and does not ask us to throw it out the window to follow Him. Quite the contrary, He simply asks us to use it to examine the evidence and come to the only logical conclusion (see Psalm 19:1-3).
Mike B.| 12.7.10 @ 11:28PM
When our Presidents and Congress again feel compelled to pass a Constitutionally required Declaration of War before committing our military to any foreign action, I'll believe we have some concern with Constitutional requirements. Until then, it's all just rhetoric.