The American Spectator

home
ADVERTISEMENT
Constitutional Opinions
Print Email
Text Size

Constitutional Opinions

Downgrading the Constitution

By on 8.10.11 @ 9:06AM

Don’t blame Standard & Poor’s for the federal government’s dire fiscal outlook.

Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner dinged Standard & Poor’s for “terrible judgment” in downgrading the federal government’s credit rating. Less genteel liberals offered less flattering assesments. “[I]t’s hard to think of anyone less qualified to pass judgment on America than the rating agencies,” opined Paul Krugman. “The people who rated subprime-backed securities are now declaring that they are the judges of fiscal policy?”

Media Matters proclaimed, “Attention media: S&P lacks credibility.” Michael Moore looked up from his corn dog to muse that President Obama should have the rating agency’s CEO arrested. Some political observers dredged up the January 2011 Financial Crisis Inquiry Report’s finding that “the failures of credit rating agencies were essential cogs in the wheel of financial destruction,” specifically identifying S&P as one of the “the failures of credit rating agencies were essential cogs in the wheel of financial destruction.”

But the rating agencies’ failure was to exaggerate the creditworthiness of rickety financial institutions and securities, giving out favorable ratings like candy. That history doesn’t seem to help the U.S. government’s case, especially since one could just as easily argue that past credit ratings have been overly generous given how deeply in debt we find ourselves.

One area where the critics of the downgrade have a point is that S&P engaged in, as George Will put it, “a kind of half-baked political analysis criticizing the American system of government.” As dysfunctional as our political class has become, the Founding Fathers built a certain resistance to change into the system. When decisive action is needed, some might look askance at the checks and balances that both parties skillfully wield against one another.

Yet blaming the American system would somewhat miss the point. It is the wholesale abandonment of the Constitution, particularly the doctrine of enumerated powers, that has led to our current predicament. In place of the Constitution bequeathed by our Founders, we have an unwritten constitution that has turned our government into what some liberals describe as an insurance company with a (soon to be much smaller) army.

The federal government has usurped the power to regulate wholly intrastate economic activity, or even inactivity in the case of purchasing health insurance, perversely claiming the interstate commerce clause makes it right. Washington now unofficially amends the Constitution by precedent, so that past violations can be used as future proofs of constitutionality.

We have also created an expensive web of entitlement programs rooted in no enumerated power of the federal government, which we find ourselves powerless to reform even as they stand at the precipice of insolvency. FDR once bragged that “no damn politician” would ever be able to touch Social Security. So far, recent political history has proved the old New Dealer right.

Without the strictures of constitutional government, the American people find themselves laboring under obligations they never freely chose. In fact, millions now give the fruits of their labor to support entitlement programs that may well be bankrupt by the time they are eligible to draw benefits from them. They will come of age as the Ponzi scheme runs it course and the bills come due.

Idealistic politicians — some of them in positions of influence in this Congress — may try to rein in the spending or make the obligations more realistic. But politics doesn’t offer much incentive to risk making voting recipients of government benefits angry right now in order to solve future problems. And even the Republican-controlled House owes much of its current majority to demagoguery about the government monkeying with old people’s Medicare.

The end result is a set of political choices that are in a way more constricted than those offered by the original Constitution, which could at least be amended. Attempts to amend the programs that are the main drivers of our debt may well be a political kamikaze mission. The people know they can vote themselves funds from the public treasury, a system very different from what the Founding Fathers envisioned and which is now collapsing under the weight of its own contradictions.

Aside from a Democratic “deem and pass” here or a Republican McConnell plan there, the procedural restraints of the Constitution, the ones that limit the pace of political change, are mostly observed. But the substantive restrictions the Constitution imposes on the political class, the parts that limit what government can do, are almost completely ignored.

It is those restraints that could have kept the country off a financially perilous path. Unfortunately, the outlook for constitutional government was downgraded a long time ago.

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.

Letter to the Editor View all comments (142) |

Gary B| 8.10.11 @ 6:33AM

Free money is a powerful motivator. Unprincipled men will move heaven and earth, trample old people, kick toddlers out of the way and shred the Constitution to get it.

Alan Brooks| 8.10.11 @ 8:30AM

"the Founding Fathers built a certain resistance"

Because women did not count for much. Today tokens such as Michelle Bachmann count for little more.
The 18th century is finished, Antle- get used to it.

Clint| 8.10.11 @ 8:49AM

So's Your Boy, Obama.

"The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Tuesday shows that 21% of the nation's voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as president. Forty-two percent (42%) Strongly Disapprove, giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -21 "

Alan Brooks| 8.10.11 @ 9:28AM

But, Clint, that doesn't mean the GOP/Tea Party will elect a first-class candidate next year.
Since the election of '88 it has been one disappointment after another; you can't blame the electorate for being doubtful the Right will get it right next time, can you?

If you don't know what to do then say so- don't brazen it out.

Clint| 8.10.11 @ 9:32AM

But Allen, If Your Boy Obama don't know what to do then say so- don't brazen it out.

Alan Brooks| 8.10.11 @ 10:00AM

How can anyone know what he is thinking? I asked YOU if YOU know what to do; if you don't then say so. I personally don't know- but do know that your saying 'vote Tea Party' is asking the electorate to trust the Tea Party without any reason to.
You are saying "trust us. Why? because we say so- that is why."

Shill Watch| 8.10.11 @ 10:21AM

You already have a bad candidate. Even our worst will do well given the O's utter incompetence and his total lack of leadership. With regard to the Tea Party, don't shoot the messenger. You wouldn't be happy that your house was on fire but shouldn't blame the firemen. I guess you would but you are delusional. Anyway normal people wouldn't blame the firemen.

Clint| 8.10.11 @ 10:21AM

Duuuuuhhhh !

It's what Obama Is " DOIN' " about The Economy.
U-3 Unemployment: 9.1 Percent

U-6 Unemployment: 16.1 Percent

United States GDP Growth Rate
The Gross Domestic Product (GDP) in the United States expanded 1.30 percent in the second quarter of 2011 over the previous quarter. Historically, from 1947 until 2011 the United States' average quarterly GDP Growth was 3.28 percent.

Dow Down 373.23 Today.

SpiralArchitect| 8.10.11 @ 12:18PM

Alan "Straw Man" Brooks - silence yourself and you will immediately seem more intelligent.

You speak using only conjecture & unfounded opinion on the pages of TAS.

Alan Brooks| 8.10.11 @ 1:03PM

"You speak using only conjecture & unfounded opinion on the pages of TAS."

Par for the course.

Alan Brooks| 8.11.11 @ 1:56AM

I of course speak from the enlightened and intelligent word of our great leader Barrack Obama, to serve him should be the life goal of every America. He asks for so little and returns so much.

The Big E| 8.10.11 @ 4:29PM

Yeah, trusting someone simply they say so has a bad (and very recent) precedent. What more did Obama say in 2008?

And what more is he saying now? We just went through all this crap over the debt limit and he spent the entire time criticizing other people's ideas and insulting those with whom he disagreed, but never, NEVER, put forward any idea of his own in a meaningful way. Still, he said nothing more substantive than, "Trust me because I say so."

And yet for some reason, no matter how much he proves he cannot be trusted with anything serious, YOU Alan, still seem to trust him for no reason other than that he says you should.

Alan Brooks| 8.10.11 @ 5:51PM

No one else to turn to.

Roy N.| 8.10.11 @ 7:02PM

Alan, if the Tea party got its way (which it didn't) cut, cap & balance would have passed and we probably would not have been downgraded. Most Americans agree that sharp cuts are needed which is the point of the TP. They are much more reliable than the democrat left and Obama.

Drunken Sailor| 8.10.11 @ 3:13PM

Answer the question, do you want a conservative, a liberal or even a libertarian? What kind of candidate do you want the Republicans to run that will keep you from voting for Obama? Answer the simple question or add professional sh*t disturber to your resume.

Alan Brooks| 8.10.11 @ 4:08PM

I want the GOP to be dissolved. The GOP elephant is a white elephant.

Ground Control| 8.10.11 @ 7:21PM

I want the Democrat Party to be dissolved. A greater collection of crooks, liars, cheats, and thieves than the Jackass Party cannot be found. The Party of tyrrany. The Party of corruption.

Margie| 8.10.11 @ 10:34PM

Thank you. I second that emotion.

Margie| 8.10.11 @ 10:32PM

Here Alan Brooks is being honest.
A lot who post here in the name of conservatism actually want to see the same thing happen as he does.

Drunken Sailor| 8.11.11 @ 9:04AM

But Alan is not being logical, just ideological. He does not want to dissolve the GOP for not being conservative. He is a Obama loving Liberal that just likes to stir the pot

Oldefarte| 8.13.11 @ 4:28PM

The electorate jumped off the cliff of sanity on 11/4/08 and possibly destroyed their country in the process. Their being p*ssed off at Bush/Republicans due to the typical war fatigue was no reason to elect the trojun-horsed Democratic Capturer in spite [who makes even Carter appear like the second coming of JC]. If the electorate picks MICKEY MOUSE in November of next year, it will be a vast improvement from the present!!!!

Alan Brooks| 8.10.11 @ 10:45AM

Obama is only trying to humor you; you like to think Bush's compassionate conservativism can be reversed after 8 years- but it is now too late: you know very well we are never going to get out of debt.

The fireman has been killed at the fire.

Shill Watch| 8.10.11 @ 10:47AM

You always surprise me at just how delusional you are.

Alan Brooks| 8.10.11 @ 11:21AM

"You always surprise me at just how delusional you are."

Compassion and conservatism are as oil and vinegar- they don't mix. You would actually blame an executive who was in office for 21/2 years more than one who was president for 8?

YOU are delusional in that respect. Besides, I can tell you asre a young GOP/Tea Party guy who has little experience.

Shill Watch| 8.10.11 @ 3:01PM

I blame an ideology that collects people who can't add. Your compassion is like the corporate jet tax break in the larger debt debate. You talk about it a lot but it is a drop in the bucket. Someday it might occur to you that giving away other people's things is not compassion.

Thanks for the time reminder. When you consider it in damage per week units, Obama is amazingly destructive. I won't vote for George Bush and you shouldn't vote for President Osama. Have you considered Ralph Nader? He would stick to his convictions.

Alan Brooks| 8.10.11 @ 4:14PM

Your people will talk small govt., and after the election-- it does appear you will win next year-- they will do what they have done since Nixon-- SPEND.

Shill Watch| 8.10.11 @ 5:30PM

Another of your predictions gone down the tubes. The party is over. You made a giant mess but had a long run. Maybe they will make another TV series about amazing technocrats running the country. The real world will be forced to shrink the government and fire the mentally handicapped technocrats. Sorry about Wisconsin. All that money in an off year election for such meager results. Never fear it is going to get a lot worse for you.

Alan Brooks| 8.10.11 @ 5:46PM

The GOP will screw it up again.

Alan Brooks| 8.10.11 @ 5:49PM

... How many times since Ike left office 50 years ago has the GOP said "we are going to downsize government", however only the rate of increase in govt. is 'accomplished', no reduction.

Buck Ofama| 8.10.11 @ 3:01PM

Alan, you fool, you are starting to sound like Ovomit, wailing "Bush's fault! Bush's fault! (whimper, snivel, whine).

Of course this economic cluster f*ck is not all Jokebama's fault; nor is it all the fault of Bush or of Clinton. Rather, it's the fault of decades of greedy, self-serving, irresponsible and spineless politicians and businessmen that have killed America's prosperity for the sake of their own individual profits. These assh0les never gave a whit for the old maxim, "Never charge to the future what the present still lacks." And why should they have? They are not held accountable by anyone.

O'Icarus is equally spineless, and lacks the cunning business sense and requisite public sector experience necessary to lead with any credibility.

The clown must GO.

Alan Brooks| 8.10.11 @ 4:16PM

You got lucky with Reagan, it was a fluke.

Ground Control| 8.10.11 @ 7:58PM

"Compassion and conservatism are as oil and vinegar- they don't mix."

This is a despicable lie.

Bill| 8.10.11 @ 5:05PM

Now, now, anyone can see he's not a pro.

carnot| 8.10.11 @ 3:50PM

you best hope not.....cuz the firemen won't be the last.

Alan Brooks| 8.10.11 @ 4:19PM

Here is something that has changed:
once in a while, 'Minutemen' ask people to volunteer to guard the border-- but no one shows up.
In the past some would have shown up.

Ground Control| 8.10.11 @ 7:59PM

More inaccuracies from the head cheerleader for the Jackass Party. Many "Minutemen" DID show up and were promptly challenged in Court by Democrats.

Negro X| 8.11.11 @ 1:59AM

The Brooks buffon always seems to forget who has control congress for the greater part of fifity years, his liberal overlords.

Oldefarte| 8.13.11 @ 4:34PM

Obama has about as much humorous capacity as a poisonous snake does. As Pam Geller stated recently in her editorial, Obama's election was the epitome of the radical/extremist Democrats' efforts of the last 50 plus years, and will be recorded in history as the ending swan song of the Democratic Party because of same. Their coming out/exposure of their true radical political nature has destroyed any reasonableness within their party!!!!!

Alan Brooks| 8.11.11 @ 2:01AM

Actaully I wish Barney Frank or Harry Reid would run, great, honest Americans.

TrueBlue| 8.11.11 @ 11:17AM

That's true. They ARE pretty honest, about how much they think this country needs to fall and how horrible the Constitution is.

Oldefarte| 8.13.11 @ 4:36PM

I wish those two would get a motel room somewhere and make it a threesome with their Botox Queen from California!!!!!

Have you considered| 8.10.11 @ 9:38AM

Alan, your statement regarding women is unfounded, and actually our Constitution is silent in regards to females.

As a matter of fact, I can argue the opposite to your assertion.

I will support this contention in a simple reading of the constitutional provisions regarding the qualifications for holding office.

Note that all qualifications for representative, senator or president are "NO PERSON shall" not No Man Shall. Does this not, in your mind, extend to the possibility that they contemplated that females may one day hold office? It does to me.

We must also acknowledge that the goal of writing the Constitution was to make it acceptable to The People, and to Get It Ratified by the states.

You may also want to considered how Ex Post Facto comes into play.

Lets just say that our founders decided to change and override current state's laws, and bestow the vote to females circa 1787. Do you really believe that this document would have been ratified by the states?

The same can be said of slavery.

Many of our founders were vehemently opposed to slavery, but again, having Ratification as the primary goal, do you really believe it would have been ratified had the founders transgressed the current laws, and the property rights of the southern land owners?

Here is the language of Art1, Sec9...can you guess as to WHY this language if found?

""Section 9. The migration or importation of such persons as any of the states now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each person.""

Does it occur to you that they clearly contemplated banning the importation of persons after 1808? And if you ascribe to the notion that, if you want less of something, tax it, you may see that they contemplated just this action.

If John McCain had had the chops and Knowledge, he would have destroyed Woopie Goldberg and her slavery quips when he appeared on The View.

Alan Brooks| 8.10.11 @ 10:03AM

I don't say you are incorrect on anything you wrote above, but still think Bachmann and Palin are tokens even if they are qualified-- and they might be.
Cain, no matter how qualified he is, is still a token.

Clint| 8.10.11 @ 10:24AM

They're No More Tokens Than Your Obama, ObamaBoy Brooks.

Alan Brooks| 8.10.11 @ 10:47AM

So you admit Palin, Bachmann, and Cain are tokens?

Dick Gnome| 8.10.11 @ 11:35AM

You are a token. What kind I won't mention.

Alan Brooks| 8.10.11 @ 1:06PM

with a handle such as Dick Gnome? you are funny.
I wonder if it is your real name; almost certainly not!

Dick Gnome| 8.10.11 @ 5:13PM

How dare you cast asparagus at our clan. We are very well known in Switzerland, and have settled in many fine back gardens. If you fail to retract this definition of character, you'll find your ankles gnawed to a quick. And don't think you can simply plead the fifth dimension. Repent or feel our mite!

George True| 8.10.11 @ 11:41AM

Irrelevant! Not what we are discussing.

Alan Brooks| 8.10.11 @ 1:08PM

most pieces at AS are not relevant, but that's what you are for- to escape from reality; that is what religion is for.

Drunken Sailor| 8.10.11 @ 3:18PM

So you admit that voting for Obama and his plans are a escape from reality?

Answer the question, do you want a conservative, a liberal or even a libertarian? What kind of candidate do you want the Republicans to run that will keep you from voting for Obama? Answer the simple question or add professional sh*t disturber to your resume.

Alan Brooks| 8.10.11 @ 4:20PM

take the poker out of your rear end, old man.

Have you considered| 8.10.11 @ 10:56AM

Alan, thank you for taking the time to read my post.

Alan Brooks| 8.10.11 @ 11:24AM

You are welcome; just wish Clit and Shrill Watch were a bit more polite.

Buck Ofama| 8.10.11 @ 3:04PM

Token?

Ovomit can correctly assume the moniker "Otoken".

Let's see, we have:

Jokebama
Obowma
Oblowme
O'Icarus (my 1st fav)
Ovomit (my 2nd fav)
Otoken (might replace #2)

Yes, I like these.

carnot| 8.10.11 @ 3:53PM

yes...but...the Obama token has been authenticated. we have now verified the true identity.

The Big E| 8.10.11 @ 5:04PM

". . . Bachmann and Palin are tokens even if they are qualified-- and they might be.
Cain, no matter how qualified he is, is still a token."

A curious statement Alan. Palin has not announced that she is running, and indeed, may not run, so technically, including her is not even relevant. Bachmann is at or near the top of most polls among Republicans, so obviously, that view of her is not shared by those who will choose the Republican nominee (since, unlike leftists who assume that anyone who disagrees with Obama is a racist, I will not assume that any Republican who prefers some other Republican views her only as token).

Likewise, Cain was doing pretty well in certain polls early on until he started suffering from foot-in-mouth disease - an ailment which also struck the Gingrich campaign (is Gingrich also a token? What would he be? The token Catholic?)

In reality, neither Bachmann, Cain, nor even Palin (if we treat her as relevant at this point, which she's not) are tokens. You only view them that way because of your own prejudice against anyone whose point of view differs from your own.

You ASSUME that what anyone who disagrees with you does is disingenuous, you ASSUME that those who do not share your point of view are either ignorant or evil, and you ASSUME that, to the extent they give the appearance of being rational, good-hearted people, they are being dishonest.

You ASSUME the worst of everyone who does not think like you, and so you ASSUME that since you would not view a female or black candidate as a token, that those who disagree with you on other things do.

You need to quit ASSUMING things about people because you are demonstrably WRONG about this, and you don't even recognize that fact because your prejudice is getting in the way of your judgment.

Reasonable people can honestly disagree about matters of substance.

Occam's Tool| 8.10.11 @ 5:32PM

Yeah, But I like the Big E and almost always agree! Excellent post, sir.

Alan Brooks| 8.10.11 @ 5:45PM

"YOU Alan, still seem to trust him for no reason other than that he says you should."

Because it is apparent you will keep running those who talk small govt during elections.; but when they take office they show their true colors.
It is for public consumption.

TrueBlue| 8.11.11 @ 11:22AM

They talk small government, then they do the opposite, and then we'll vote them out until they get the point. It's sad that it has taken this long for people to get that thought through their heads because they all want their "free" money.

You keep saying people need to stop living in the past, and yet you continually point to the past as proof of how people will act in the future. Nice double standard there.

Shamus| 8.11.11 @ 7:13PM

The complaint that politicians can't be trusted is certainly nothing new. And neither is the fact that most people don't care for either candidate. If you want to participate, then you have to pick the one you dislike the least.

Oldefarte| 8.13.11 @ 4:38PM

Tokens? Shazam! We have the word TOKEN IN SPADES now occupying the WH, who couldn't run a snowball stand profitably in downtown DC if he tried to, and you have the nerve to talk about 'tokens'??????

George True| 8.10.11 @ 11:41AM

Alan...WTF??? You are totally off-topic. When women got the vote is wildly irrelevant to what we are discussing. Contribute something relevant to the discussion or else stay off the keyboard.

Ground Control| 8.10.11 @ 1:02PM

This is a stupid comment. Irrelevant. Insipid. Bozo-ish. Brooks, you are an idiot.

Alan Brooks| 8.10.11 @ 1:57PM

AS is a nostalgia club... so I don't take it seriously.

carnot| 8.10.11 @ 3:54PM

and you're one of the only posters supple enough to reach is own rhetorical organ!

carnot| 8.10.11 @ 3:57PM

that's exactly what Mr Brooks' posts are......thread after thread......adolescent self-pleasuring!

Alan Brooks| 8.10.11 @ 4:21PM

You must mean Ben Stein, right?

carnot| 8.10.11 @ 5:48PM

is his alter ego asking?

Alan Brooks| 8.10.11 @ 5:54PM

His ego is big enough to be its own alter ego.

Dave | 8.10.11 @ 11:41AM

This all kind of reminds me of a scene from that classic movie - "Treasury of the Sierra Taxpayer." It's the one when Barry the bandito bellows out from behind a large rock and says: "Constitution? We don't got to honor no steekin' Constitution."

Man, I thought they didn't make 'em like that anymore. But right now, the sequel's playing at the Lincoln Bijou in D.C.

I'll get the popcorn.

Timothy L. Pennell| 8.10.11 @ 6:41AM

Where do ya start?
We need TERM LIMITS. We need a CHECK on the CORRPUPTION that infects, seemingly, everyone who remains in Washington, too long.
"Lead us, not in to TEMPTATION, but, deliver us from EVIL".
So much MONEY. So much POWER. So many people who want Favours, in return for Favours. Harry Reid is worth MILLION$. He says he earned it as a small Country Lawyer, for 3 years. Joe Lieberman looks a hell of a lot "Fancier" than he did when he first got to D.C.
Our Founding Fathers set up a system of government, that "Could not work, without a GOOD PEOPLE, with strong Religious beliefs. (Judeo-Christian) That's what John Adams declared.,We now have ONE Political Party, who, not only DON'T have strong Religious beliefs. They don't believe in GOD, at all. They believe in the power of the STATE. They believe that our FOUNDERS "Got it all wrong". That, the Constitution and the Declaration, are Relics, with no Relevance to today's world.
Jefferson, Adams, Hamilton, Franklin, Hancock, et al.
Who are these people? This is the 21st Century.
THINGS HAVE CHANGED.
Kerry, Pelosi, Reid, Waters, Lee, Nadler, Schumer, Frank, Murray, Rangel, Rockefeller.
Indeed.

chuck| 8.10.11 @ 8:08AM

I am by nature an optimist. I believe I have the power to set my own future, and the harder I work at something, the more apt I am to achieve it.
However, looking at the sorry state of our once proud country, I must realistically say that I see no way out. Our politicians, on both sides, with the exception of a few Tea-Partiers, have no guts to do what is necessary to cut this behemoth down to size. Look what is going on around the world, London burning, Greece, Spain, Italy, Portugal, on the verge of collapse. The Euro and the dollar are virtually worthless. The entitlement class are revolting at the mere thought of the loss of their "rights" to someone else's hard work. And our so called "leaders" are fomenting this!
We are quickly reaching the point where this will be impossible to turn around. Do what you can to prepare for this, the strong will survive, but this country is toast.
Have a nice day!

Mimi| 8.10.11 @ 7:12AM

As of the Nov,2010....The system set up by the founders is self correcting......We will know in Nov. 2012 if that self correction continues. Yes the overspending has been not good in the PAST.
But since the Democratic congress from Jan.2009 and then the election of Obama it has been OUT OF CONTROL.....they need not deny or lie about this ...The truthful facts are there for all to see....And their SPENDING has been EXTREME!

Trinacria| 8.10.11 @ 1:43PM

As de Toqueville recognized two centuries ago, the system set up by the founders is self-correcting...until we reach the point where the majority can vote themselves favors that are paid for by the minority. We have now reached that precarious point of no return and the proverbial die is cast.

Clint| 8.10.11 @ 7:29AM

No Skin In The Game & Yet They Vote.

Occam's Tool| 8.10.11 @ 5:05PM

Actually, Clint--it's worse than that---the skin they have in the game is that if the Porkulus doesn't continue they lose money. They have NEGATIVE incentive to vote responsibly.

Brian Mc| 8.10.11 @ 7:30AM

We the people are impotent to a large degree having lost the one biggest block against federal socialist reforms; the now popularly elected U.S. Senate. They once were 'hired' by their respective delegations to represent the state.

Our ability to govern against mob rule went away and now, our senators know they are in like Flynn if they can only promise to bring more MONEY stolen from the people back to their home state. The states are now impotent against a raging monster we call federal bureaucracy. There is no stopping this leviathon unless there is repeal of the sixteenth and seventeenth amendments to the Constitution. Once this occurs the fed will be forced to fend within the confines of the Constitution and the bureaucracies will dry up. I will say this with my dying breath, but can only hope that it won't be necessary.

YeloStalyn| 8.10.11 @ 11:16AM

Once we began to elect Senators with popular elections, we esentially became a Republican Democracy rather than a Democratic Republic. And as a form of Democracy rather than a form of Republic, we are doomed to fail... as all democracies are.

Our schools have lied to us for go long, telling everyone that they all get a vote, that we're a democracy, that it only takes a mob (usually they call it a "majority") to change the rules in the middle of the game. It's no wonder that people think it's their "right" to vote with the majority that the minority become slaves (those who work and pay the bills for those who just get money from the government).

John II| 8.10.11 @ 12:46PM

Not to mention that our schools over the past several decades of decline have given us an ignorant electorate unpracticed in reflection and easily manipulated by the likes of the current gaseous occupant of the White House.

The reckoning is nigh. I plumb reckon.

And now back to "Blackboard Jungle" (1955), in which the affable Glenn Ford (foster father of Superman) plays a brave and effective teacher in a slum school before teachers' unions in consort with corrupt liberal politicians turned all public schools into slum schools.

The Big E| 8.10.11 @ 5:22PM

Absolutely right Brian. The checks and balances built into the Constitution were not just between (theoretically) co-equal branches of government, they were also intended to be between the Federal Government and States to insure that neither could gain too much power. Indirect election of Senators was the number one check on Federal Power, but so many other catastrophic mistakes in our history, that check was eliminated because the Senate was getting in the way of reform.

Where would our financial house be today if the interests of the State's themselves were represented in Congress as they once were?

When "The Rise and Fall of the American Experiment" is written by some future author, I fear he will cite April 8, 1913 as the date we ordained our own doom.

martin j smith| 8.10.11 @ 7:36AM

The Socialists we know--they have shredded the constitution. But we must give credit to the Republican Establishment for aiding and abetting same. As long as conservatives depend on the likes of GWB< John McCaine,Mitt Romney ,John Boehner and Mitch McConnell to name a few--They will make sure that our constitution is obliterated.

Walking Horse| 8.10.11 @ 8:40AM

The Progressive Virus infected both political parties in the early 20th century, and it shows.

POST American| 8.10.11 @ 8:08AM

"DO understand, money and the
'money system' is the ORIGINAL con job.
Call that bluff, and you've seen through
the whole scheme."
-ALAN WATT
(truth online)

Making it simple: Glow-ball-ism = USURY =
Monopoly = TREASON = Depravity =
Ultimate TREASON = EUGENICS = ABOMINATION
= the Divine Wrath of GOD.

-------------------ANY QUESTIONS?-------------------

------------------------ANY ARGUMENTS?

You'll find, ultimately there aren't any cause
that's the ---NOT Walter Cronkite--- way it is.

REALLY

Brian Mc| 8.10.11 @ 8:51AM

Kindly do us a favor; unplug your computer and go live in a cave.

Bill| 8.10.11 @ 9:21AM

POST American = procurer for the Tavistock Institute.

Dan Mathewson| 8.10.11 @ 6:14PM

Naw, he's Mr. Doubletalk. What if any? If not how much? Has anyone really been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like?

Trinacria| 8.10.11 @ 1:47PM

Seroquel.

Have you considered| 8.10.11 @ 8:55AM

Mr. Antle, I agree with you.

In my opinion, the fault lies more upon We The People, than upon our elected representatives.

When reading the Federalist Papers, it is obvious that the US Constitution was designed with human nature in mind. Our founders understood the tendency for power to grow and usurp the rights of individuals.

By creating a system of elections each two years, they guaranteed that We The People had the power to peaceably change our government.

They did not foresee that The People would become The Sheeple, and abdicate their intellect and interests, and not jealously guard their right to Life, Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness.

What would have happened had The People stood up against FDR's court packing scheme?

What would have happened if The People not ratified the 16th and 17th Amendments?

I agree with Brian Mc above, without repeal of these two amendments, we will Never get back to our foundational principals.

In my lifetime, I have never found another person (in person, not on the net) who has shown even a modicum of knowledge of the federal charter, known as the US Constitution.

The obliteration of this knowledge has been successfully completed by our government run schools, and I fear it is too late to Keep It, as Ben Franklin was said to have said.

Conservative View| 8.10.11 @ 9:40AM

As Pogo once said, "We have met the enemy, and they are us."

George True| 8.10.11 @ 11:50AM

Was it not John Adams who said: "The constitution is meant for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate for the governance of any other."

Occam's Tool| 8.10.11 @ 5:30PM

Yes, George, it was. I looked up the quote---you are, as usual, Right and True.

Purpleguy| 8.10.11 @ 11:26PM

Yeah, for the 18th century - the world has moved on - didn't you get the memo?

Oldefarte| 8.13.11 @ 4:43PM

In consideration of the 11th federal circuit's decision of yesterday, apparently not as far as you people would prefer, right????

David| 8.10.11 @ 9:15AM

The truth is that the same group of people that downgraded the US are the same ones partially responsible for the banking/mortgage crisis. Their credibility is not there at all.

Trinacria| 8.10.11 @ 1:56PM

True, true, and irrelevant. Credible or not, they are not the problem (surely you don't believe they're wrong, or does borrowing more money in 6 years than in the previous 230+ years since the country's founding strike you as prudent fiscal management?). Fact is, blaming the S&P for our crisis is like blaming Paul Revere for the Revolutionary War. Messenger, not cause.

BD57| 8.10.11 @ 8:32PM

And what was their fault in the subprime crisis?

Being overly generous to junk.

Defense counsel for S&P would say "That debacle taught us we'd been lax where we should have been vigilant. We're not going to make that mistake again."

Bill| 8.10.11 @ 9:20AM

Everytime someone does something the leftists among us don't like, they suddenly are stupid and unreliable people.

That's how you know you're dealing with progressives; they think the people and those they disagree with are stupid and evil, not just wrong.

Buck Ofama| 8.11.11 @ 12:21PM

Yes, and as Reagan observed, "It's not that Liberals are ignorant; it's that their ideas are wrong."

Louis Jenkins| 8.10.11 @ 9:24AM

Isn't it strange that the Legislative Body of the BigGovCo is now foaming at the mouth for an investigation of S&P? "By G--, we'll teach them a thing or two about debt!! We're in good shape." Well, S&P didn't rate the Constitution, it rated the spending habits of those care takers who run things. Should have been done sooner. Attack the messenger, not the message.

"...substantive restrictions the Constitution imposes on the political class, the parts that limit what government can do, are almost completely ignored."

Yes, and it's the government that is doing the most ignoring at the bequest of their constituients. Society no longers considers the message that the Constitution brings, rather its what they desire that ultimately brings down the gavel.

Conservative View| 8.10.11 @ 9:43AM

Perhaps the absolute dumbest thing that could be done by the politicans in Washington is to "investigate" S&P. Can you imagine the folks from S&P actually laying out on the table just how bad a shape our echonomy really is in, in front of the cameras. Wouldn't Fox News have a blast with that one!?

Bill| 8.10.11 @ 10:20AM

I think CBS News, CNN, MSNBC, and several others would have an equally good time with S&P ripping the cover off.

chris haynes| 8.10.11 @ 9:39AM

If you apply logic, S&P is without a figleaf.

If their downgrade was indeed correct, they are grossly negligent in warning other investors.

S+P's job has been to answer this: Will the bonds get paid off when theyre due.? Greenspan nailed it. Of course the US will pay off its bonds. It can print the money if it needs too.

But S&P blows off that fact. Instead S+P opines on whether the money will be devalued. For the first time in US bond rating history. Okay.

But then it needs to downgrade every long term debt to payable in American currency. All municpal bonds, all corporate bonds, all mortgages. But it hasnt. Gross negligence.

chuck| 8.10.11 @ 10:21AM

You need to take your comment to its logical conclusion. Yes, we can pay off the debt with printed money, but the more money that is printed, the less it is worth. INFLATION! You are paying off the debts with something that is worthless! Hence the downgrade.
Idiot!

George True| 8.10.11 @ 11:53AM

Ding! Ding! Ding! We have a winner!

What Chuck said.

George S| 8.10.11 @ 1:02PM

Gross negligence? S&P issued a warning in early April that they were going to downgrade American bonds.

The reason for the warning was that if the debt ceiling was increased, it would only encourage the Fed to continue with QE and Zero Interest Rate Policy. This would cause the debt to continue to grow and continue to discourage lending as banks would sit on their reserves and not make loans because the interest the Feds pay them is greater than the market return with less risk (talk about bank profits!). Without capital, there are no business startups, meaning no new employment meaning no new tax payers meaning no economic growth meaning no cutting into the deficit.

As long as the Treasury keeps buying new debt with the proceeds from debt maturing (QE), the banks will continue to sit on their reserves. As long as the Fed continues ZIRP (which they just did going into 2013), the dollar continues to devalue. The combination of both only makes the coming inflation more severe.

Just who in negligent here?

carnot| 8.10.11 @ 4:04PM

wait a sec...both Geithner and Obama were publicly predicting default days before matter was temporarily resolved.

S&P performed a useful service your politics notwithstanding. the wake-up call continues.

BD57| 8.10.11 @ 8:34PM

You say "we can print the money" as if that's a good thing.

It's not even a "neutral" thing.

calvin | 8.10.11 @ 10:20AM

Mr. Haveyouconsidered;
why do we continue to respond to Mssr . Brooks?
You have given a reasoned and informed constitutional answer to a person who has not studied the Constitution.
Ignore him and he will go away. He is not here to argue rationally but to annoy, as small children do when they want attention.
As the old joke goes, the masochist says "spank me." The sadist responds, "no."

Nick| 8.10.11 @ 10:46AM

Calvin,

Mr. Brooks has been posting here ever since I have, which has been almost 3 years, now. He isn't going anywhere.

calvin | 8.10.11 @ 12:48PM

Nick;
He will be here as long as serious folks keep rising to the bait.

Nick| 8.10.11 @ 1:06PM

Calvin,

My point is that Mr. Brooks is not a troll, he's a regular commenter here. Unlike yourself.

Your admonitions will fall on deaf ears. Or, should that be blind eyes?

carnot| 8.10.11 @ 4:06PM

wow! living in the land of Point!

Al Adab| 8.10.11 @ 11:22AM

We had a similar discussion the other day about whether the government is broken. We found that the underlying problem is not that it can't function but rather that we ask so much of it that it is not designed to do. Limiting once again the federal government to its proper, enumerated powers would go a long way toward one: getting the budget under control and two: expanding the business environment to a much more conducive state. All in all, better for everyone.

What do we do with those now in office who refuse to understand they are under oath to defend the Constitution, not their constituancy or the government agencies in the budget. If we solve that problem, the rest falls into place.

Occam's Tool| 8.10.11 @ 5:27PM

“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” (John Adams, October 11, 1798.)

Considering that this fellow helped write the document, his words should be heeded.

Tina B| 8.10.11 @ 6:16PM

And gentlemen, can we really call ourselves "a moral and religious people"? I don't mean you and me, I mean America as a nation. What percentage of Americans today are still moral and religious? Is that why it's malfunctioning at this point in our history?

fwb| 8.10.11 @ 11:35AM

There is no fix because 99.99% of the human race is dishonorable and totally lacking in integrity. Greed drives EVERYONE regardless of what one claims.

We have what we have because of how we behave. Is there a fix? I don't think so. At one point in my life, I believed in the goodness of man. After 6 decades, I recognize that, except for a very, very select few, man is inherently evil.

Humans do not think. Humans are lazy. Humans ... are different than the rest of the animals. Humans are worse.

There has never been a Congress that respected the Constitution. The first Congress violated the rules by passing such laws as the Militia Act. Congress is not authorized to define a single "bit" of the Constitution because Congress is subordinate to the Constitution. Without the Constitution, Congress does not exist. The Constitution creates the Congress and thus is the boss of the Congress. If Congress had the authority to define even one word such as Militia as they did in the Militia Acts, then Congress can define every word in the Constitution. If Congress can define the words, the Constitution is a moot document carrying absolutely no authority. The government can do as it please. Note that this IS how the government operates. AND neither the President NOR the judiciary can define any of the Constitution either because they too are subordinate to the Constitution. The employee is beneath the boss.

Lastly, the only entity that may define the Constitution is We the People. But We the People have been brain-washed about the government the Founders handed to us because the power to educate was turned over to the very demon, govenrment, that the Framers were trying to control.

Yes, humans are s2pid.

AgentRose| 8.10.11 @ 1:17PM

Greed doesn't drive the Hobbits!

BD57| 8.10.11 @ 8:38PM

You call it "greed," others would call it "self interest." Regardless, it isn't going to go away - it's hard-wired into all of us.

Which is what makes an economic system based upon each party determining the terms upon which it conducts "transactions" (not just "business" - we do it in every relationship) the best of all the alternatives.

Stefan Stackhouse| 8.10.11 @ 11:55AM

A better approach might be to add a page to the tax form where taxpayers could checkoff which programs they would like their tax dollars to fund, at what percentage of the total. One person might prefer to see more funding go to domestic welfare programs, another to environmental conservation, yet another to scientific and medical research, etc. Applying part or all of it to national debt payoff should also be an option. Only a few essential government responsibilities (like defense and law enforcement), interest on federal debt, and programs that could be set up as self-funded (as Social Security and Medicare really should be) would be excluded. This would get a huge amount of complexity off of Congress's plate (and out of congresscritters hands), and let the taxpayers decide which programs thrive and which ones shrivel and die. I suspect that a lot of people would be amazed at the number of programs thought to be of vital national interest that just don't draw very many "dollar votes" from ordinary taxpayers. They might also be surprised by the programs that would continue to be adequately supported, including some that the politicians don't value all that much.

Since we already do this for that Presidential Election Fund thing, and that has apparently withstood any legal challenge, then there is apparently adequate precident for the constitutionality of such a scheme.

There is only one reason why this hasn't been done, and it is the same reason (or rather, 535 reasons) why nothing else has been done or will be done.

George S| 8.10.11 @ 1:30PM

The debt is not optional, you and your kids are on the hook for it. The IRS will attach wages or assets if push comes to shove; if it was optional then why is the debt an issue? Full Faith and Credit means... you and me are good for it.

Bill| 8.10.11 @ 2:19PM

You're right, of course. But sometimes people will surprise ya by getting pissed off enough to actually DO something like refuse to pay and fight rather than give in.

Merlin| 8.10.11 @ 6:46PM

Several people who know more history than I do have pointed out that national debts of this size in relation to GDP never are paid. What will happen when our creditors demand their money, and we try to give them pieces of paper on which the ink is not yet dry?

It is not to hard to come up with some truely nightmarish senarios. Suppose the Chinese decide that our problem is that the money that should be going to them is going into our SS system. Should we start training geriatric battalions now?

Oregun| 8.10.11 @ 7:25PM

This is the simplest and best way to defund programs that are unpopular. Hmm, like ACORN. It also addresses the idea of having skin in the game without taking the heat. I believe the vote was restricted to land holders originally because the founders knew that you need to keep people from voting themselves money instead of earning it. This is where we are at now. I like your idea!

Joe D.| 8.10.11 @ 12:49PM

You are correct Mr. Antle. The constitution does not need to be torn up. The bumbs in office need to be thrown out.

A balance budget amendment is nice but does not fix the problem. We need to make the congress and president follow the correct consitution, not the one they made up some 100 years ago.

Buck Ofama| 8.10.11 @ 3:17PM

Les aks Ovomit... cuz he bez a constushinal perfeser.

ware my gubmin chek?

uno wuti sayn?

Occam's Tool| 8.10.11 @ 5:30PM

Dear Buck,

You sound like Riddley Walker, which is quite appropriate considering the mess we are in. Everyone, grab Steyn's new book. Awesome! I am not Mark Steyn, nor his personal friend. I am a friend of Tom Kratman, and I recommend his Caliphate for the "Optimistic" scenario.

BD57| 8.10.11 @ 8:42PM

Unfortunately, "the bums" who take their place won't be any more altruistic, etc.

As it currently exists, American politics rewards politicians for spending money, not spending money WISELY. Nobody gets brownie points for saying "No."

BD57| 8.10.11 @ 8:42PM

Unfortunately, "the bums" who take their place won't be any more altruistic, etc.

As it currently exists, American politics rewards politicians for spending money, not spending money WISELY. Nobody gets brownie points for saying "No."

AgentRose| 8.10.11 @ 1:13PM

Well Said. "not without a mighty Warrior, even a Hero. I tried to find one; but warriors are busy fighting one another in distant lands, and in this neighbourhood heroes are scarce, or simply not to be found."

Oldefarte| 8.10.11 @ 4:13PM

Its amazing that some of this blogging back-and-forth has absolutely nothing to do with the subject of Jim's article. Our constitution and the fathers' main objective no doubt was in the providing of military/security for this nation. There was no idea or thought given to the government granting WELFARE to its citizens originally, which is what the Democrat Party of liberals/socialists/domestic terrorists etc have historically usurped their political power into providing at taxpayers' expense!!!!!!

BD57| 8.10.11 @ 8:55PM

All true, yet here we are.

Plus, while Democrats may have championed the programs which are going to strangle us in the first instance, our side of the aisle has never had much stomach for actually doing anything about it. Our history has been "Democrats create programs which waste money, we claim we'll run the programs more efficiently."

In a few cases - "EPA" being one - WE did it.

This is an "American People" problem. Look at the polls which say majorities want debt & deficits addressed ... but Social Security & Medicare better not be touched.

What's infuriating to me is the people who post here who tout these polls as prescriptions for policy. Anyone who cares enough about policy to read articles here knows entitlements have to be scaled back, that we can't "tax & cut defense" our way out of this mess.

Oldefarte| 8.11.11 @ 11:53AM

Your valid points though ignore the needed separation between Medicare/SS and Medicaid; with the former partially paid for through lifetime payroll deductions, while the latter is not paid for by its indigent recipients and is total WELFARE. This separation is never made purposely by Democrats. While modifications to the former need to and will be made, the wasteful governmental expendatures of the latter need to be addressed and eliminated. The welfare class is getting larger through time, and the governmental granting of welfare has simply not worked in relieving poverty. If/until these povertous indigents are properly educated [and our public school system is completely revamped/improved] will this country ever be able to reduce governmental expendatures on this welfare that is financially destroying taxpayers!!!!!!

carnot| 8.10.11 @ 9:12PM

you know...OF....as one who leans conservatively and served a full career in the armed forces...the Constitution says nothing about the level of resources that should be committed to defense/security. we all know that is on the table. in fact, these cuts are already well underway.

it's not enough to cite abstractions. the details are going to involve tradeoffs across the board.

Oldefarte| 8.11.11 @ 12:01PM

'....PURPOSE AND EFFECT OF THE PREAMBLE ....Although the preamble is not a source of power for any department of the Federal Government, 1 the Supreme Court has often referred to it as evidence of the origin, scope, and purpose of the Constitution. 2 ''Its true office,'' wrote Joseph Story in his COMMENTARIES, ''is to expound the nature and extent and application of the powers actually conferred by the Constitution, and not substantively to create them. For example, the preamble declares one object to be, 'to provide for the common defense.' No one can doubt that this does not enlarge the powers of Congress to pass any measures which they deem useful for the common defence.....'

HAVE A NICE DAY!!!!!!!!!!!!

POST American| 8.10.11 @ 10:00PM

---------------------BOTTOM LINE----------------------

-----Whither the Republic?

MEANWHILE, everyone enjoying this latest
round of astonishingly on cue 'benny violence'
across Britiain, and even here in the States?

Almost as neat as that OBVIOUSLY set up,
Freemasonic styled 'Break their hearts' Norway
massacre.

--And BTW, anyone heard anything more on
John Wheeler's murder? --the world DEPOP
OP n Fukishima? ---those massive tunnels
now connecting Pigeon Lake B.C. with Asia?
---that 1.5 quadrillion in FAKE USURY derivatives debt?
---the instigators and eager helpmates of the RED China sellout and TREASON agenda? ---the ILLEGAL, foreign
owned, culture and economy subverting FED?

Timely Renewed | 8.11.11 @ 2:48AM

We must redress these underlying distortions of the Constitution which have allowed the federal government to expand far beyond its original constitutional powers. The only sure way to achieve this is to amend the Constitution to restore the original constitutional structure which limited the federal government's ability to expand to such a ridiculous size and power.

However, this is difficult to achieve when Congress holds a monopoly on initiating constitutional amendments. The solution is an "amendment amendment" which gives the States the ability to initiate constitutional amendments without the cumbersome convention now required by Article V. This will allow grassroots constitutionalists to press a program of amendments carefully drafted to achieve the restoration of the original constitutional structure as well as such useful improvements as a balanced budget amendment without having to go through Washington at all. Only this will permanently constrain federal overreach of the sort rejected by the people last November. See http://www.timelyrenewed.com.

carnot| 8.11.11 @ 7:20AM

it's difficult to achieve because it's progressed so far. that's the whole point. it's been intentionally engineered this way.

walking back entails a lot of pain. that's what this whole debt ceiling, deficit reduction charade is really symbolic of. who gets gored the most.

Kevin Gutzman | 8.11.11 @ 12:52PM

The procedural restraints of the Constitution are mostly observed? Please google "delegation doctrine" before you say that again.

POST American| 8.14.11 @ 7:03AM

---------------------PRESCRIPTION-------------------

In the wake of the Templar/Mason 'wannabe'
'Break Their Hearts' horror in Norway, and
the briliantly on cue, agenda advancing unrest
in Britain ----what we can do right here:

POST the US Constituion and Bill of Rights
in such public spaces as cafes and popular
restaurants/

EXPEL the Freemason infitrators and chumps,
along with the Rockefeller EUGENICS phalanx
'Council of Churches' operatives, and the
'Clergy Response. government informers
from your churches.

CLEAR your private home space of the mind
control Tella-Vision and radio, and the surveillance and eavesdropping PCs.

Curtail that other microwave
-cancer engendering tracking device --the CELL-phone.

In politics DEMAND to know your candidate's
occult affiliations and DEMAND FULL disclosures
of just what oathes he's taken
and financial backing he's accepted.

It's in your power -------------GO TO IT.

More Articles by W. James Antle, III

More Articles From Constitutional Opinions

Will Congress’ Sloppy Work Survive Supreme Court Scrutiny?

May 3, 2013 | Jack Park

Maryland v. King

April 8, 2013 | Jack Park

The Grave Robber

April 6, 2013 | Seth Lipsky

Null and Void?

March 16, 2013 | Seth Lipsky

Next at the Palladium

February 9, 2013 | Seth Lipsky

http://spectator.org/archives/2011/08/10/downgrading-the-constitution

ADVERTISEMENT

Latest Headlines

The Inoperative Jay Carney

Jeffrey Lord|57 comments

Lerner’s Plea

Ray V. Hartwell, III|56 comments

Eugenic Abortion 2.0

Daniel Allott|26 comments

Holding AWOL Obama Accountable

Betsy McCaughey|14 comments

What Are the Risks of Syria Involvement?

Christopher Orlet|13 comments

Obama’s Imbroglios

R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr.|23 comments

Obama’s Drone War

Jed Babbin|9 comments

Catholic Culture In America

G. Tracy Mehan, III|16 comments

The Spectacle Blog

#FreeKate? Movement to Normalize Pedophilia Finds Its Poster Girl

Robert Stacy McCain | 10:09AM

Morning Round-Up 5-23

Patrick Ryan | 10:06AM

I Agree With Andy McCarthy: No Special Counsel

Ross Kaminsky | 9:16AM

Sorry, You Can’t Delegate Responsibility

Ray V. Hartwell, III | 9:10AM

Issa Recovers

Ross Kaminsky | 5.22.13

The Religion of Peace Strikes London Again

Aaron Goldstein | 5.22.13

Not Just the Media: First Amendment Under Attack

Quin Hillyer | 5.22.13

House Judiciary: Constitutional Rights Vital in Wartime

Luca Gattoni-Celli | 5.22.13

SPONSORED LINKS

FLASHBACK TO: 1995

Clip of the Day

ADVERTISEMENT

Home |About |Contributors |Advertise |Donate |Privacy Policy |Contact

The American Spectator Foundation is the 501(c)(3) organization responsible for publishing The American Spectator magazine and training aspiring journalists who espouse traditional American values. Your contributions are tax deductible to the extent permitted by law. Each donor receives a year-end summary of their giving for tax purposes.

Copyright 2013, The American Spectator. All rights reserved.