-
Sweet Home, Alabama
June 11, 2013 | 38 comments
-
Laying Down My Pen
May 24, 2013 | 0 comments
-
Laying Down My Pen
May 23, 2013 | 92 comments
-
Despite the WaPost, Benghazi Is a Major Scandal
May 21, 2013 | 46 comments
-
Putting Heritage in DeMint Condition
May 10, 2013 | 57 comments
Streetcar Line
Viguerie Is Vigorous About Governing Government
Resurgent constitutional conservatism is putting constitutional liberalism to rest.
A number of good conservatives, including fellow American Spectator columnists Joseph Lawler and Jim Antle, have rightly been discussing and praising a recent National Review article by Ramesh Ponnuru defining “constitutionalism” and defending Texas Gov. Rick Perry’s general approach to constitutional issues. Lawler ended by writing that “the next step” for Ponnuru would be to define specifically what conservative constitutionalism means.
Fortunately, that job already has been done just this month, exceedingly well, by conservative movement stalwarts Richard Viguerie and Mark Fitzgibbons. The two have produced a new, freely downloadable online pamphlet titled “The Law That Governs Government: Reclaiming the Constitution from Usurpers and Society’s Biggest Lawbreaker.” (Full disclosure: I provided, without remuneration, some very minor editing assistance to the project.) That “biggest lawbreaker,” write Viguerie and Fitzgibbons, is American government itself, which repeatedly acts outside the bounds of the Constitution, which they correctly and cleverly call “the law that governs government” — or at least is intended to govern, meaning to restrict, the government, but all too often without success.
“Government has become a bully to the very people it is supposed to protect and keep free,” they write. (I wrote more on this subject this week here.) It has “injected itself into nearly every aspect of private affairs, and has taken an excessive, intrusive and omnipotent view of what are public matters. Given the vast and unilateral authority it claims to have over so much of society and property, government has unmatched opportunity for lawbreaking. It makes and rigs the rules in its favor…. After all, who’s going to prevent the government from breaking the law? The government has more resources, and is bigger and more powerful than any of its victims. Plus, it has what private lawbreakers do not have: the power to control and change the rules of the game, and with penalties of law on its side.”
The authors and Ponnuru agree that the left has abandoned constitutionalism. Here’s Viguerie and Fitzgibbons: “The political establishment disregards and shows contempt for the notion that the Constitution is the law that binds them.” Here’s Ponnuru: “[P]rogressives have been far more likely than conservatives to express impatience with the whole constitutional scheme of limited government; and… progressives have long sought, often successfully, and still seek to change the Constitution without going to the trouble of formally amending it.” Or, as Lawler once described the liberals’ attitudes, “[W]ho would want to have to consider whether one of our biggest social programs is in accord with our founding documents? Who wants to worry about whether the laws of the land have any bearing on what the government does? Let’s just go about our business and not get wrapped up in it.”
Granted, there are some rare modern liberals who sincerely profess to be bound by the Constitution’s actual text. Fine. They still read it wrongly. This is where Viguerie and Fitzgibbons, in one sentence, distinguish constitutional conservatism from constitutional liberalism: “Our Constitution is what enables our exceptionalism by securing our liberties.” Modern liberals would choke on the combination of the two key words in that sentence, namely “exceptionalism” and “liberties” (in the sense, for the latter, of protections against government rather than benefits, tangible or intangible, doled out by government). The Constitution is a document by and for Americans, solely (i.e. “exceptionalism”), to keep governments from violating liberties that existed from time immemorial by God’s grace without any government at all. The political left has done great damage by conflating “liberty” with “rights” and then by redefining “rights” to include positive demands on government’s beneficence — which in turn means that government must assert the power necessary to be able to provide such beneficence. And, worse, to define, by fiat, what “rights” it will deign to provide — or impose — next.
To digress, former Bush administration official Tim Goeglein in his new book Man in the Middle provides a succinctly comprehensive description of the conservative belief system that Viguerie and Fitzgibbons’ constitutionalism surely would embrace in most or all particulars:
The essential nature of twenty-first century American conservatism is a view that the federal government is too large and should be relimited; that governments like families should live within their budgets; that the market economy is the road to prosperity and is consistent with human nature; that our defense budget must be robust in defense of our liberty; that above all we need to preoccupy ourselves with the moral framework of our freedom; and that we need to preserve the values of Western civilization in the Greco-Roman but especially the Judeo-Christian traditions as the bulwark of virtue that nurtures freedom.
As Viguerie and Fitzgibbons explain, in what is no mere intellectual exercise but instead a stirring (and fairly detailed) call to political arms, what is needed is a “constitutional conservative push back against government lawbreaking.” They humbly offer numerous suggestions for how to conduct such a push-back. (Hint: Individual citizens must be politically and civically active, and vigilant.) Throughout, they insist that the Constitution is no mere plaything for lawyers but instead something that everyday Americans can and must read, understand, and safeguard.
As Ponnuru reminds us, conservatives should understand that reclaiming the Constitution will “require a great deal of public deliberation and support before the change can occur.” In that spirit, Viguerie and Fitzgibbons are right to insist that “the constitutional conservative movement is the last and best chance to save America, and what you can do to reclaim your individual freedoms, protect your property rights, and keep America secure and prosperous for generations to come.”
About the Author
Quin Hillyer is a senior editor of The American Spectator and a senior fellow at the Center for Individual Freedom. Follow him on Twitter @QuinHillyer.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (15) | Leave a comment
More Articles by Quin Hillyer
More Articles From Streetcar Line
http://spectator.org/archives/2011/09/30/viguerie-is-vigorous-about-gov
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Michael Tomlinson| 9.30.11 @ 7:26AM
Ramesh Ponnuru's National Review article was spot on and proves why, despite early stumbles, Rick Perry is the conservative to not only stop the triumph of Mitt Romney's "milk toast" moderatism, but reverse the anti-constitutional Obama/Democrat agenda.
Beau Blotz| 9.30.11 @ 11:02AM
The appropriate term is milquetoast derived from a wimpy weenie cartoon character from the early 1900s named Caspar Milquetoast.
Ken (Old Texican)| 9.30.11 @ 8:39AM
Michael,
One thing about it; Perry would de-fund a world of regulators. They won't regulate without a position and a salary.
If we can get him a Senate majority I believe he will demand a repeal of a whole bunch of stuff as well.
Conversely, I believe Romney will float along on the wind.
Al Adab| 9.30.11 @ 4:05PM
Romney represents just about everything that is wrong and has been wrong with the GOP for the last fifty years. So much of the party is simply in the go along-get along mindset that they manage to accomplish little by way of rolling back the social welfare state. What good would it do us to nominate and elect someone to the left of McCain?
Whether Perry or Cain or any other would seek to and/or defund the regulatory mandarin class remains to be seen, but they need to be called on it and those positions made clear.
While activist Conservatism may be oxymoronic, we need a strong approach to limiting the intrusiveness of government and its overweaning power and control.
Kevin K. Wilson| 9.30.11 @ 10:38AM
One correction to the pamphlet. The nation of Israel wandered in the wilderness until that generation passed, not their leaders.
Liam| 9.30.11 @ 12:18PM
Don't see much of anything in a scan of the pamphlet. They should have put some work into educating folks about the Constitution first. You can't claim violations until you get the person you are talking to educated to your level. The People DO NOT know the Constitution, even those claiming to be scholars and professors of the Constitution. In fact, I believe 99.99% of the folks out there are ignorant of the Constitution, what it is, what it means, how it works, and the type of government it established.
We have not had a Constitutional government ever. The first Congress violated many sections. The best President ever was George Washington and he stupidly, or maybe cunnigly, appointed federalists to the supreme Court and began the destruction of the Constitution as it was to be.
This pamphlet, in a cursory scan, does nothing to further the education of the People.
I will read the whole damn thing but they sure blew out a lot of smoke to get 63 pages.
Oldefarte| 9.30.11 @ 4:58PM
My interpretation of this is that....IT'S THE DEMOCRATS, STUPIDS! The Constitution of the The Democrats, aka liberals, progressives, etc has one main focus for its political platform and that is simply legalized governmental theft. Call it the Robin Hood Syndrome, Hope & Change, or whatever; but its bottom line calls for taking/stealing/redistributing from those who earn/have/possess income and giving same to those who do not. The reason why some have it and others do not is mostly a matter of intelligence, education and [of course] extremely hard work, and those earning income deserve to keep the majority of same [with a minimum paid to government]. Those receiving government welfare assistance conversely are stupid, lazy and do not take full advantage of public free educational opportunities that are available to them [which would enable them to earn various levels of income and to provide mostly for their own financial needs]. Democrats/progressives/liberals use the elective power of obtained political office to redistribute via taxiation from those having income to those not have same, all in order to maintain their political office status; and that is precisely why all semi-intelligent persons that value the work ethic, should vote consistently for Republican candidates [not that they are beyond corruption etc, but because they and their political party do not have as their agenda/platform such redistributive governmental welfare proposals, and never have had same]!!!!!!!!
aspek | 10.1.11 @ 1:44PM
One correction to the pamphlet. The nation of Israel wandered in the wilderness until that generation passed, not their leaders.
axbucxdu| 10.1.11 @ 7:03PM
Oh the irony. That photo of Viguerie reminds me of Khrushchev.
Rob| 10.1.11 @ 11:26PM
This is a terrific document: "The Law that Governs Government." I hope it influences all of the remaining presidential debates. Thank you, Quin, for calling it to our attention.
POST American| 10.2.11 @ 1:51AM
Some questions for ANY Presidential prospect:
1. Are you now, or have you EVER been
afffiliated, a member, associated with,
received funding, connections or support from ANY occult
or Freemasonic organization?
2. Are you now under ANY kind of blackmail?
--or ANY mode of cyber surveillance?
3. Will you place your hand on the Bible and,
here and now, swear to the veracity of your
answers?
AS fallling America begins the task of
taking down the CFR puppet show ---
----------HUAC meets NUREMBERG 2012--------
Rob| 10.2.11 @ 7:03AM
Could American Spectator please invite all declared GOP presidential candidates to respond to the 30 questions in Appendix 1 of "The Law that Governs Government," and publish their responses?
Clint| 10.2.11 @ 12:16PM
TNA: What other positions of yours do you believe really resonate with the public at large?
Dr. Ron Paul, " That we should obey and follow the Constitution. I have been very pleased to see how many people realize that we ignore the Constitution at our peril. So many people are waking up to the fact that if we set a precedent that we can ignore the Constitution in one area then none of our rights are really safe."
The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here.
Rise Up.
Timely Renewed | 10.2.11 @ 12:39PM
The modern American left looks back to Woodrow Wilson, who argued against our constitutional framework in favor of control of society and the economy by a bureaucratic and technocratic elite. Unfortunately, since the New Deal this constitutional framework has been seriously eroded by all branches of the federal government, abetted by Supreme Court decisions which have torn to shreds the constitutional barriers against overweening government. As the authors argue, the only sure way to permanently stop this anti-democratic leftism is to restore the original constitutional limits on the federal government. Given how entrenched those Supreme Court precedents are as well as the power of the interests vested in the modern federal leviathan, this can only be accomplished by constitutional amendments restating and restoring the original constitutional framework. See http://www.timelyrenewed.com.