The American Spectator

home
ADVERTISEMENT
Print Email
Text Size

A Further Perspective

The Liberal Naysayers vs. The Federalist Papers

By on 6.27.12 @ 6:08AM

Will the Constitution be further marginalized tomorrow — or revived?

Tomorrow, the Supreme Court will issue one of the most important decisions in its history. It will decide if the Constitution, as it currently exists and was originally intended, is still superior to the actions of the two other branches of the federal government. 

Throughout America’s history, there has been no doubt that it is. This week, and especially from our most liberal quarters, this historical foundation will be disregarded — and in the most extreme outbursts, denied outright. Those protests will only grow louder if the Supreme Court rules, as it should, and overturns the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. 

It is therefore worthwhile to keep in mind the opinions of three who helped write, defend, and finally pass the Constitution. James Madison, John Jay, and Alexander Hamilton, collectively authoring The Federalist Papers, offer responses to today’s liberals that are, if anything, no less important now than when they originally wrote. 

Liberals have already attempted to marginalize the Constitution — thereby diminishing its role relative to the government — effectively aiming to decide the case in the court of public opinion before it was ever heard in the Supreme Court. They again will claim that the Constitution cannot keep pace with the exigencies of our modern life. They will say that the federal government is more responsive and knows best. 

In response, we should call to mind the words of Madison, writing in Federalist Paper #62: “It may be affirmed, on the best grounds, that no small share of the present embarrassments of America is to be charged on the blunders of our governments; and that these have proceeded from the heads rather than the hearts of most of the authors of them. What indeed are all the repealing, explaining, and amending laws, which fill and disgrace our voluminous codes, but so many monuments of deficient wisdom…?”

The Constitution and the Court remain our last fail-safes against the federal government’s mistakes.

Liberals have also sought to deny the role of the Supreme Court in this case. They have said, and the Administration has echoed, that the Supreme Court has no role in the PPACA because it is a duly-passed action of the Congress.

In response we should call to mind the words of Jay, America’s first Chief Justice, writing in Federalist Paper #64: “All constitutional acts of power, whether in the executive or in the judicial department, have as much legal validity and obligation as if they proceeded from the legislature…”

The Constitution created a government of three co-equal branches and the Supreme Court is merely adhering to its intended role in ruling on the PPACA — and in overturning it. 

Finally, liberals have said that the practical benefits of the PPACA far outweigh the theoretical considerations of the Constitution. Their claim again will be that the Constitution, if it overturns the PPACA in whole or in part, is hindering the advancement of government on behalf of its citizens. 

In response we should call to mind the words of Hamilton, writing in Federalist Paper #78: “The complete independence of the courts of justice is peculiarly essential in a limited Constitution. By a limited Constitution, I understand one which contains certain specified exceptions to the legislative authority.… Limitations of this kind can be preserved in practice no other way than through the mediums of courts of justice, whose duty it must be to declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void. Without this, all the reservations of particular rights or privileges would amount to nothing.… It is far more rational to suppose that the courts were designed to be an intermediate body between the people and the legislature in order, among other things, to keep the latter within the limits assigned to their authority.”

The Supreme Court will not be hindering the advancement of government for its citizens, it will be hindering the encroachment of government on its citizens. In short, under our constitutional government, the end does not yet justify the means. 

Brace yourself for a momentous decision and a liberal onslaught. And keep a copy of The Federalist Papers close at hand. 

About the Author

J.T. Young served in the Department of Treasury and the Office of Management and Budget from 2001 to 2004 and as a Congressional staff member from 1987 to 2000.

Letter to the Editor View all comments (92) |

Brooksifier | 6.27.12 @ 6:31AM

The Rove-Cheney administration made a scrap of paper out of the Constitution.

Nancy in NC| 6.27.12 @ 8:43AM

Just like almost (if not all) presidents before him. The Constitution came under attack before the ink was dry.

Bob Grant| 6.27.12 @ 9:29AM

You could say the same thing about all of the great documents in history, including The Bible.

And yet, they endure...

Truncheon| 6.27.12 @ 10:07AM

Heh heh heh! Well, then let's hope the Supreme Court stops the Holder/Soros administration from doing the same thing...

potkas7| 6.27.12 @ 7:37AM

If we can agree on nothing else, can we at least agree that it was not the intention of the Founders of this country to create a all-powerful central government and to abolish the sovereignty of the member states, thereby turning the Governors into mere satraps of the central regime and reducing the population to the staus of Client-Subjects rather than free Citizens?

Nor was it the intent of the Founders that the future of the republic should be dependent upon the decision of a single man, whether that man be a Legislator, the President, or most especially an un-elected Judge.

And if we can agree on these things, can we also agree that any legislation or court ruling that has this effect is a bad thing in itself, and must be resisted. And, if need be, fought against by all legal means?

Von Mises Jr| 6.27.12 @ 7:54AM

The thirteen States under the Confederation only adopted the Constitution when it included the Bill of Rights. Initially it was twelve, but narrowed to ten. Amendment IX and X were inserted to ensure that "certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people" and "powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or the people."
I think that about sums it up. We the people and the States are the Sovereigns.

potkas7| 6.27.12 @ 8:07AM

Actually the 13 states ratified the Constitution first and only after ratification did the Congress vote on amendments. They adopted 10 from a much larger slate of proposals, and though today we call them the "Bill of Rights," they were not seen as such at the time they were passed. They were simply Amendments. At least that's what historian Pauline Maier says in her book, Ratification.

Von Mises Jr| 6.27.12 @ 8:16AM

Rothbard's "Conceived in Liberty" stresses that the Constitution was not moved forward until and unless the Bill of Rights was agreed upon.
I do not know the sequence of the votes, but it was narrowed from many to twelve, and finally ten. I believe VA and NY were two of the holdouts to get the nine necessary states on board to adopt the Constitution. They probably did adopt the Constitution first since the Bill of Rights was an addition to the contract between the people, States and Federal Government.

Albertus Magnus| 6.27.12 @ 9:17AM

I know I'm nit picking, but just a small note. The Constitution is not really a contract between the people, the States, and the Federal government. This presumes that the federal government is an entity that exists outside the Constitution and is capable of entering into a contract as such an entity, with the people. This would be incorrect.

The Constitution is first and foremost, the Law. Specifically, the Supreme Law of the Land applicable to the States that have ratified it. The Federal government had no legal role in creating or ratifying the Constitution. The Constitutional Convention was a convention of delegates from the States. The US government was not represented.

If one wants to consider the Constitution a contract at all, it would be a contract among the several States, with the Federal government specifically NOT being a party to this contract. This contract among the States is to create a central government and define and thus limit its powers. This is why the 1.th Amendment says that powers are "delegated" to the United States.

Albertus Magnus| 6.27.12 @ 9:22AM

Continued: One does not delegate from a lesser power to a superior one, but from the superior to the lesser. Therefore, the States are the superior power. The States wrote and ratified the Constitution, and the federal government is the SERVANT of the States, not our Master.

The Preamble says this quite clearly, "We the People... do ordain and establish this Constitution." It does not say "the Party of the First Part, the People, and the Party of the Second Part, the Government, agree to the following terms and conditions..." If it did say this, then the contract description would be applicable.

Albertus Magnus| 6.27.12 @ 9:31AM

Continued: Power is hierarchical. The supreme authority/power in these United States is the People, who exercise their power through their elected represtatives in the State Governments, and those State Governments wrote the Constitution, and UNDER the Constitution the old federal government under the Articles of Confederation was dissolved, and a new federal government was created. In this system, the US Government is not at the top, it is at the third level down. We the People forget this at our peril. It is long past time that We the People reminded the US government who is the Boss, and it ain't them.

No doubt leftists and statists who idolize government and the trappings of power will quibble with this, even ridicule it. But this is what the Law says, the Law created and ratified by the legitmate power of the People and the States, the usurpations of the federal government notwithstanding.

Von Mises Jr| 6.27.12 @ 9:58AM

Albertus, you are absolutely correct. It is an important point, not trivial.
The Constitution is a contract limiting the central government. It has grown like a Leviathan and is arrogant and obnoxious.
In fact, to your point, Locke's second book of "Two Treatise of Government" explains that man is the sovereign and if the government fails to protect his life, property or liberty, that it is the duty of the people to terminate and replace it.
Thank you for the clarification. You are spot on.

C. Vernon Crisler | 6.27.12 @ 10:32AM

Albertus, I agree with what you say to a point. The main disagreement is that under our Constitutional form of government the States are NOT superior to the federal government. Madison and co. set up a MIXED sovereignty between the federal gov't and the States. Each is sovereign within its own jurisdiction (enumerated in the Constitution, etc.).

Albertus Magnus| 6.27.12 @ 11:02AM

I agree that there are levels of power and sovereignty within the feds and the States. But my point was that the Constitution, the Supreme Law of the Land, was not created by the federal government, it was written and ratified by the States, and is binding only on those States that have ratified it. The States delegated specific powers from themselves to the federal government and reserved all remaining powers to themselves. This process defines the superiority of power and authority of the States. Power is not delegated up, or even sideways. It is delegated down, down from the States to the feds, not the other way around, and power is shared between the States and the feds because the States intended it to be that way. It should also be noted that the federal government has no authority to amend the Constitution. Amendments can only be proposed by Congress. They are ratifed as part of the Supreme Law by the States and can not be forced on the States.

My point is that the federal government is not an entity that exists on its own nor does it have inherent powers of any kind. It is a creation of the States, is the servant of the States, and is subject to the Supreme Law imposed on it by the States. It has no authority to exceed those powers, nor to redefine those powers.

Al Adab| 6.27.12 @ 11:18AM

Albert good information all around. The Constitution is a creation of The People and the States through the ratification conventions. It was not ratified by legislatures but through a seperate State by State process.

We have now come to a point where it may legitimately be asked whether or not the federal government has, through its recent actions ala AZ, F & F, Obiecare, etc., abrogated the covenant by which the People established the limited national government. It no longer limits itself to its enumerated powers indeed it violates them and refuses its obligations, but rather seeks to operate independantly of The People and impose its own will upon them. Has not the national government become destructive of the ends for which it was created?

Albertus Magnus| 6.27.12 @ 11:51AM

"Has not the national government become destructive of the ends for which it was created?"

Yes. It has. Quite clearly, in fact. The US Government operates on raw political power, not the rule of law.

C. Vernon Crisler | 6.27.12 @ 3:05PM

Albertus, I agree with everything you say up to the point where you say the States created the federal government and the federal government is subject to the "Supreme Law imposed on it by the States."

That is simply not true. The State legislators were bypassed because the framers knew the States would oppose any delegation of power. Instead, ratification was done by the PEOPLE of each State through conventions. About the only thing the States ever did was appoint delegates to the original Constitutional convention, except Rhode Island (or Rogue Island as it was called).

Also, the supremacy clause rules out your view that the federal government is subject to the "Supreme Law" imposed by the States. It's just the other way around.

As I said, Madison and co. set up the Constitution in order to divide sovereignty, not to unify it.

Albertus Magnus| 6.27.12 @ 4:00PM

I don't think you understand my point. By "States" I refer to the sovereign States, that is not necessarily the government, but the people of each State. That they exercise their power through elected representatives at the State level, or vote directly on ratification is not material. Also, the supremacy clasue does not negate anything I wrote. It just means that the Constitution is the Supreme Law and binding on the States as such. But that same Supreme Law also specifically states that federal power is delegated to it (by the States because the feds can not delegate power to themselves) and any power not delegated to it is reserved to the States. This clearly and unambiguously sets up power as inherent in the People first, then the States, and the States delegate power to the feds. This is how the Constitution is WRITTEN. This is what it means and meant at the time of ratification.

My point is that the federal government is not the supreme power. The whole point of the US Revolution and the Constitution is to deny that a central government is supreme or that it has inherent powers, which was (and is) the norm throughout history, and specifically in the Crown. Ultimately the People are supreme and delegate powers to government as they see fit. This is what is meant by "the consent of the governed."

C. Vernon Crisler | 6.27.12 @ 4:21PM

Well, of course to say that the People are supreme is a very different thing from saying the States are supreme. However, as you've clarified it, I don't have any disagreement with you then.

Al Adab| 6.27.12 @ 12:00PM

Jr, potkas7:
The best current book on point is Ratification by Pauline Maier. It reviews the conserns raised by each of the State ratifying conventions. The national government is a covenant between tThe People who ratified and the government so created. We now have a situation wherein the national goverment may be seen to have abrogated that covenant. If true, are the People and States still bound?

Al Adab| 6.27.12 @ 12:01PM

Wow! Long thread. It will take some work to keep the conversation straight.

CJW| 6.27.12 @ 1:05PM

Al Adab, Von, Albert
Very interesting ideas.
The practical problem is that the Civil War effectively destroyed the concept of succession and state's sovereignty. Had South Carolina not fired upon Fort Sumter and proceeded in a peaceful manner to secede, who knows? Could Lincoln have obtained a declaration of war or had the moral legitimacy to invade if there had been no attack?

There is no question that after the Civil War, and with each war after, WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam, etc. the power of the federal government has increased beyond whatever the Founders believed.

The other fact that increased the power of the feds is the income tax. Since its inception in 1916, the federal govenment has taken up to 70% of income. More money means more power. We have also been in continuos wars since 1916.

The feds tell the states that if they want "fed" money they have to comply with fed regulations on speed limits, DUI, roads, etc. The states are always begging the feds for money, and that seems to be the primary function of our legislators "to bring home the pork."

If we want to limit the federal govenment we must deal with the federal income tax.

C. Vernon Crisler | 6.27.12 @ 3:10PM

No CJW, the Civil War did not change the relation betwen the States and the federal government. That happened during the late 1940s, when the Supreme Court adopted the Incorporation doctrine. (See Raoul Berger's *Government by Judiciary*.)

CJW| 6.27.12 @ 5:02PM

Don't agree with Berger's opinion.
The basis for the incorporation doctrine is that the 14th amendment applies to the states some of the Bill of Rights, such as the first, fourth, fifth, sixth, and eight amendments., And now conservatives want the second amendment applied to the states for the right to bear arms.

The 14th was passed immediatedly after the Civil War as part of the Reconstruction. It was passed in the Confederate states by the military governments imposed upon these states by the feds. That is about as much power a federal government can have over a state government.

The net effect of the incorporation doctrine is that most of the Bill of Rights applies to the states.
Of course, we can have different opinons as to the cause of the loss of state's sovereignty, and the incorporation doctrine does require the states to follow the Bill of Rights, but the reality is the the loss came from the War and Taxes. Money and Guns.
Do you believe that a state could or may secede from the Union today? Most will say the Civil War answered that question.

C. Vernon Crisler | 6.27.12 @ 5:46PM

CJW, no State could secede from the Union either before or after the Civil War. The Civil War merely preserved the Union as defined under the Constitution; it did not affect State sovereignty. State sovereignty has been a victim of Progressivism, FDR, and the post-1940s Supreme Court.

mike 3/505| 6.27.12 @ 10:33PM

We also need to create alternative monetary systems not under control of the Federal government. That entity that can tell any bank to freeze your funds, has absolute power over your ability to resist.

Von Mises Jr| 6.27.12 @ 1:07PM

All good.

Al Adab| 6.27.12 @ 1:29PM

Let me ask another question if I may. With the Holder contempt vote set tomorrow, should the House, as seems likely, find him in contempt could not the Senate - with whose advise and consent he holds office - withdraw their consent? He holds office on good behavior and was appointed with the consent of the Senate. It would be akin to a vote of no confidence as I perceive it. Any thoughts?

CJW| 6.27.12 @ 1:35PM

Al Adab
I would leave Eric in office. He will make a great campaign issue.

Albertus Magnus| 6.27.12 @ 1:58PM

Al Adab, to get rid of Holder he would have to resign (he won't), or President Bozo could fire him (he won't), or the House could impeach him and the Senate vote to convict and remove from office (will never happen). That's pretty much it, unless he dies in office like Ron Brown or Malcolm Baldridge.

C. Vernon Crisler | 6.27.12 @ 3:08PM

Even better is the biography *James Madison: A Biography in His Own Words*, Vol. 1, Newsweek Book Division, 1974.

Boar Hunter| 6.27.12 @ 12:31PM

No offense to either you or certainly Von Mises Jr. on this topic, but discussing the fine points of the founders intentions seems as relevant as Washington's love for poinsettias.

What good is the law if those with the authority to enforce it, instead hold it in disdain?

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

This contemptible, immoral regime, openly violates the law, lies to subvert it and simply ignores those laws it disagrees with.

Scholars that you are, what did the founders say about such men? What was the mechanism of enforcement? Where are the checks and balances?

Half our country understood that "Hope and Change" simply meant "Worship us and we will provide for you."

Things Obama was unwilling to contemplate six months ago he now does with full knowledge that he stands unopposed.

I would note that a few years ago, the constitution was twisted by evil men to include the "right to abortion." This new found right was argued through the courts and upheld as law. Obama no longer even bothers re-writing the laws, as king he simply ignores it and his subjects offer no objection.

Obama is not king you say? Tell that to Arizona.

Albertus Magnus| 6.27.12 @ 2:00PM

Boarhunter: Bullseye. This IS the problem, the utter lack of respect for the Law by elected officials and their bureaucrat minions.

ggoblue| 6.27.12 @ 7:37AM

...under the next president we can occupy planned parenthood and ignore the access to abortion legislation!

have liberals thought this through? of course not.

Ken (Old Texican)| 6.27.12 @ 7:40AM

Well,
if they don't throw it out, then the Republicans must make it part of their daily mantra: "We will have no economic recovery under Obamacare!"

Al Adab| 6.27.12 @ 11:56AM

Right you are Ken. As on the other thread, this is the economy The Left wants.

nathan| 6.27.12 @ 7:46AM

I will remind you all that similar to the first comment, Bush routinely violated his oath of office. How many of the people on this site rose up in righteous anger to complain? And I'm not even talking about his conduct of the war against the terrorists. The signing statements? Show me the article of the Constitution that allowed that nonsense.

But how many of you complained when Padilla's Fifth Amendment rights were being trampled? Show of hands? Or when the "Un" Patriot Act was being passed in direct violation of the Constitution? If you didn't complain when Bush was violating his oath on a daily basis, then kindly remain silent while his successor does the same. And no, I'm totally uninterested in the GOOD INTENTIONS nonsense. Actions only matter and Bush's were ghastly on all levels being little if any better than his successor.

And things won't change. Romney has already told us he's going to violate his oath of office too.

When principled conservatives demand that BOTH sides right and left obey the supreme law of the land, then we'll start moving back to what this country should be. Not before then.

The Big E| 6.27.12 @ 10:05AM

"If you didn't complain when Bush was violating his oath on a daily basis, then kindly remain silent while his successor does the same."

Imagine this theoretical scenario - you and I are rowing a boat down a river toward a waterfall over which neither of us will survive, and we're taking turns as "captain" of the boat. We were rowing toward the waterfall whle I was captain, and though I heard a roaring in the distance, I foolishly did nothing about it, though you complained vociferously about the direction we were heading. Then we switch captains, and now that you're in charge, you decide the roaring is nothing to be concerned about, and vigorously drive us on to our deaths.

Under your rationale, I would have no right - as we approach our impending dooms with ever more certainty, to point out to you that the roaring I heard and ignored is now clearly a waterfall, and we're going to die if we don't stop. Under your rationale, I should just keep my mouth shut, keep rowing, and silently plunge to my death over the falls with you.

I could turn your reasoning back on you very easily. Why is it that those same people who wanted Bush tried for war crimes, who hated him so much they wrote books and made movies fantasizing about his assassination, now worship Obama when is doing exactly the same thing, or worse, has actually extended and increased the exact policies they wanted Bush prosecuted for?

The Big E| 6.27.12 @ 10:14AM

(cont.)

The basis for that type reasoning is, "fairness." What you are saying, in essence, is that it is not fair for me to complain about Obama's illegal actions if I did not complain about Bush's illegal actions. This sort of reasoning highlights the inherent irrationality of ANY arugment based on "fairness." It argues that people should not be permitted to learn from their mistakes. Thus, if one person makes a mistake, they should not then complain when others make the same mistake, though in reality, they themselves may have learned from their mistake and would not again make the same mistake. That is why you generally hear, "That's not fair!" as an argument from a 3 year old - it is 3 year old thinking - or from a liberal/progressive like Brooksifier above - their capacity for rational thinking is about the same as a 3 year old.

The Big E| 6.27.12 @ 10:17AM

(cont.)

The reality is that there is a lot of perceived hypocrisy in politics - which of course, comes as a shock to anyone who has a pulse - but the fact that someone has erred in the past does not invalidate their complaint about the errors of the present. Indeed, if the errors of the present are identical or similar to the errors of the past, their experience may validate their complaints rather than invalidate. People do not generally learn from their successes, they learn from their failures - again, except for liberals/progressives - who make the same mistakes over and over because the first thing one must do to learn from a mistake is to admit that a mistake was made. Liberals/Progressives are apparently incapable of doing this, thus they make the same mistakes over and over, never learning, never growing, stunted, like their 3 year old logic, to the actions of an overgrown toddler.

For the record, a lot of conservatives, myself included, did complain about George Bush's actions as President. The fact is that his domestic policy was anything but conservative and he spent money like a drunken sailor, though he was positively miserly compared to the current idiot in chief. Persoanlly, I was not a fan of his foreign policy, either. I thought he went at the war on terror half-heartedly, and refused to recognize who our enemy truly was/is, though again, he was far, far preferable to bumbling and very dangerous incompetence of the moron in charge now.

JD| 6.27.12 @ 3:16PM

The Left typically goes farther than this. They won't simply say your criticism is invalid if you've ever erred in the past. They don't even stop at making up false examples of you erring in the past to satisfy the previous requirement.

No, what they often do is declare that any criticism of one of their proposals is invalid if the critic does not propose an alternate, perfect solution to the problem their proposal purports to solve.

This can be flawed in three ways:
1) They don't allow you to argue that the problem they purport to solve might not be a problem, or might be the wrong problem
2) When you propose an alternate solution, your proposal will not even be considered a proposal unless it is a liberal proposal, and even then will be held to a far higher standard than theirs.
3) The idea that flaws in a proposal evaporate if the person who discovers the flaws cannot solve the problem is comically absurd.

I attempted to turn this logic on the Left yesterday in conversations about Arizona SB1070, demanding that they solve the problem before they be allowed to criticize SB1070. They mostly did not comprehend their hypocrisy. The only "answer" was the old "prosecute those who employ illegals" line. It's infinitely more difficult to prevent anyone from paying anyone to do anything anywhere in the country than it is to secure the border and/or check IDs when performing government functions, but they don't care - their ideology demands blaming solely employers for problems.

Purp| 6.27.12 @ 5:31PM

PULease - when the Democrats could have put Bush, Cheney and the whole rotten crew on trial - did they? For torture, warrantless wiretaps, etc. ? No, they didn't.
What have your nasty Republicants do? F&F trumped up to the highest so Issa can make a show trial of nothing.
When you're in the gutter, you can't complain about anyone else, so you have no room to bitch. Get out of the gutter, tell the NRA to shove their "black mark" if Congressmen don't vote for Contempt of the Atty General. But you won't, because the right plays nasty, dirty politics. And you all like it.
Well, next time anyone not on the right does anything you don't like- tough. Grin and bear it. Or would you like to teach the Left how to be even nastier than you?

George S| 6.27.12 @ 5:55PM

No they didn't, because when you convene a trial it is time to shut up and put up your evidence -- and shutting up meant the political value was over. Issa is putting up evidence left and right and Obama is claiming EP in response. Much like Nixon (how many dead bodies turned up in the Potomac from Watergate?). Or better yet, can you explain what Alberto Gonzalez did that got him hauled before congress and why that was worse than what Holder allegedly did? Gonzalez fired people... why... why that is unprecedented!!! Well, at least no toe tags were issued.

chuck| 6.27.12 @ 9:20PM

And the US Attorneys that were fired serve at the pleasure of the President. Bush wanted them fired, so Gonzalez did what Bush asked him to do. Nothing illegal or immoral about it.

And Clinton fired about 80 US Attorneys when he became President.

chuck| 6.27.12 @ 9:17PM

Fast and Furious is an act of war. The Mexican Army is battling the drug lords, and your hero "The Messiah", or his flunky Holder sells the druggies automatic weapons. At the VERY least they have enabled the murder of hundreds of Mexican citizens, a U S Border Patrol agent, and who knows how many Americans. These guns have shown up as far north as NY.

Shove that up your dumbass Purp.

C. Vernon Crisler | 6.27.12 @ 10:33AM

Uh oh, the Paulista brigade is posting again.....

Albertus Magnus| 6.27.12 @ 11:09AM

Mr. Nathan, few here will defend ol' "W". Many of us DID complain loud and hard against the "Patriot Act," but our warnings went unheeded. I wrote to my Congressthing (a hard core Democrat) complaining about it but to no effect (not to mention the Patriot Act was passed with bipartisan effort, so there is blame aplenty to go around). But that was ten years ago and not many of us were here posting on AmSpec at the time so it is understandable that you missed what we wrote.

JD| 6.27.12 @ 3:18PM

Bush's approval rating spent years in the 20s despite half the country self-identifying as conservative. Simple math (no math is simple where liberals are involved, but...) tells us that at least as many conservatives did not approve of Bush as did. The Left ignores this fact in its many, many frequent claims that all conservatives love everything about Bush and must answer for all he did.

Mike G| 6.27.12 @ 12:41PM

I began complaining about government overstepping its authority in 1979. The fact that I didn't post my complaints online then doesn't mean I should refrain from doing so now. You sound like a liberal who wants to allow "freedom" of speech as long as you agree with it.

Hardcard| 6.27.12 @ 8:00AM

Lots of ultra-socialists around. I smell a $oros.

Purp| 6.27.12 @ 5:32PM

Get your head out of your a$$. That will cure it.

Otisg| 6.27.12 @ 8:12AM

Mr. Young – as to your “straw man”…………..
The original construction of the Constitution was destroyed by the “Civil War Amendments” and not improved by the remaining Amendments.
Are we really to believe that we fought the Revolution to be independent from the Crown only to become dependent on a (Big) Central Government? Two of the three Federalists you mentioned thought so.
Obamacare is simply the natural relentless march of the nanny state which began in earnest on July 4th , 1861.
In addition to the Federalists Papers, I would recommend that you also try reading the Anti-Federalists Papers and Able Upshur’s refutation of Judge Joseph Story’s Commentaries on the Constitution.
To understand more fully my comments on the 13th, 14th, & 15th Amendments – I would suggest “Freedom & Federalism” by Christopher Morley.

aware| 6.27.12 @ 5:19PM

Yes.

Purp| 6.27.12 @ 5:33PM

Times change, change with them, Sunshine.

Quartermaster| 6.27.12 @ 8:24AM

Hardcard, many conservatives take a very dim view of the so called Patriot Act. The concern is righteous.

Lincoln's imperial war destroyed what we had under the constitution. If that war had not taken place, we would not be in the situation we are in. The Federalist Papers really don't mean much as FedGov is lawless and pays attention to the Constitution only when it is convenient. SCOTUS itself is a scoff law.

C. Vernon Crisler | 6.27.12 @ 3:19PM

Lincoln's war was not an imperialist war. It was a defensive war. Also, the Patriot Act was necessary to prevent more 911s, something Paulistas have a hard time wrapping their heads around.

Albertus Magnus| 6.27.12 @ 4:05PM

Defensive against what? At no time did the South threaten to take over the US government. Secession is not necessarily revolution.

And the Patriot Act was never needed to fight terrorism. It was a bureaucratic response to the incompetencies of bureaucrats. 911 did not need to happen. It could have been prevented without the Patriot Act.

C. Vernon Crisler | 6.27.12 @ 4:25PM

Who fired on Fort Sumter Albert? The North or the South? The hyper-libertarians have opposed the Patriot Act for years simply because they oppose all government power. They could care less about national security. The Patriot Act was a response to 911; without it, we'd be exposed to even more 911s.

JimH| 6.27.12 @ 8:27AM

There were those, now referred to as Anti-Federalists (who in actuality were the real Federalists) who opposed the Constitution as proposed and feared the potential for the centralization of power that it represented. They have been proven prescient.

aware| 6.27.12 @ 5:46PM

Prophets.

Nancy in NC| 6.27.12 @ 8:37AM

Only "factions" think the Democrats are alone in the destruction of the Constitution. Teddy Roosevelt (in my opinion, one of the first progressives) was a ruling elite who forgot his power was derived from the people.

As citizens we have abdicated our role to be self governing and unwittingly given too much control to the government at all levels. And the government has knowingly increased the dependance by the people through social programs that were unconstitutional in the first place.

Even the most liberal Founder would be appalled by the power of the central Federal government (acts more like a National government, and there is a huge difference)/ We were warned that the only way a Republic could survive is for the people to keep a watchful eye.
In Federalist #10 Madison said that "a republic is more capable of controlling the effects of factions than a democracy". Unfortunately due to many reasons, mainly the 17th amendment and propoganda from the left, we act more like a democracy, and many citizens are unaware that we are NOT a democracy,

It's quite apparent to many that Obama abhors the Constitution and the checks and balances contained therein. After all, it's very inconvenient if one wishes to be King or Pharoah. It's up to the people to reign him and other elected leader back in. But I fear it may be too little, too late.

Al Adab| 6.27.12 @ 11:53AM

Not just your opinion Nancy, TR ran as a Progressive in 1912 thereby electing Wilson. He led the Progressive wing of the GOP (today the eastern accomodationist wing represented by Romney) and you correctly see that historical era as the source of many current ills.

Nancy in NC| 6.27.12 @ 8:46AM

I feel confident that fewer people have read the Federalist Papers than the Constitution. I am confident that most in government have managed to ignore both unless it's in their best interest. Too bad the people fail to realize we are losing our freedom by leaps and bounds through their ignorance and apathy.

aware| 6.27.12 @ 5:48PM

Like a window being closed. It started almost immediately and now is almost shut completely.

AllantheK| 6.27.12 @ 8:48AM

As I have studied covenants (Christian) I have realized that such things as the Mayflower compact and the Constitution are similar indeed to the covenants. Being formed by many who were of the Puritan persuasion. The Constitution is a compact between us with ourselves. We allowed a certain level of government for dealing with basically offshore situations. We need to get out our axes and pruning hooks. If we are able.

Bill84728| 6.27.12 @ 11:39AM

The Constitution doesn't set up a central government just to deal with basically offshore situations: it also deals with building the national roads, regulating commerce between the states (which was approaching chaos during the Confederacy years due to states imposing duties on businesses using state roads in interstate commerce), dealing with the Indians, establishing uniform bankruptcy laws, and so on.

JD| 6.27.12 @ 3:24PM

Unfortunately, Thomas Sowell left "regulate" out of his glossary. It seems to mean "do anything we want", according to the modern Left.

One wonders why the Constitution had any other words at all, particularly the 10th Amendment, if "regulate" was intended to have such a meaning?

Albertus Magnus| 6.27.12 @ 4:10PM

One of the definitions of "regulate" is "to put into working order," and is related to the word "regular." A clock is "regulated" because it operate in a "regular" manner as it keeps time. If it keeps poor time, it is not "regular." The same can apply to one's digestive tract, as endless TV commercials remind us.

The Founders did not intend that "regulate" should mean "micro-manage." If original meaning were actually employed, 3/4 or better of federal "regulations" would disappear.

JD| 6.27.12 @ 4:27PM

My post still applies. Liberals will construe ALL of their "regulations" as "putting into working order", because they think the economy has many natural flaws, and what they do fixes it.

But again, if "regulate" was intended to be so broad a term, why even bother writing any other sentences in the Constitution?

Hardcard| 6.27.12 @ 8:53AM

Thanks for the input QM, I still smell a $oros, I was refering to trolls in the commentary.

Petronius| 6.27.12 @ 9:57AM

U.S.A. R.I.Pieces.

Bill84728| 6.27.12 @ 10:48AM

Since the U.S. Constitution CREATES the three branches of government, I'm having a little conceptual issue dealing with the question raised by the first paragraph of this commentary.

JD| 6.27.12 @ 4:03PM

I think it's a sentence structure issue, not an accuracy issue. The thing opposed to "other" in "other two branches of government" is the subject of the sentence, "It", a pronoun whose antecedent is "Supreme Court". The way the sentence is ordered, one reads that "other" refers to "Constitution" simply due to its proximity in the sentence, but the rules of grammar don't actually force it to be one or the other.

Kwan| 6.27.12 @ 10:51AM

Of course it was expected that the left would be apoplectic that there would be some sort of challenge to Obama's unconstitutional ObamaCare. The leftist Justices of the court will vote for the further erosion of the Constitution. It's up to the sane (hopefully) Justices to toss ObamaCare into the waste basket and bring an end to this leftist assault on the citizens.

JD| 6.27.12 @ 11:06AM

Oh for the days before FDR's court-packing scheme, when the SCOTUS ruled a tax that didn't apply to everyone unconstitutional because the only purpose for taxation allowed by the Constitution was to raise revenue for the government, not to change the economic balance. That's right, they (correctly) ruled that redistributive taxes were unconstitutional!

Now we have a SCOTUS that prevents states from enforcing laws. I asked liberals on CNN why this doesn't also mean that police should be barred from acting against murderers, since murderers are a federal crime. They smugly answered that murder is also a state crime, so state police can act against it. They thought they won with that one, but they just walked into my trap. If murder can be both a state crime and a federal crime, then why can't a state also make illegal immigration a state crime and enforce that law?

Albertus Magnus| 6.27.12 @ 11:13AM

And like all true liberals, the CNN drones no doubt changed the subject as soon as you asked. Right?

Just checking.

JD| 6.27.12 @ 3:19PM

If not replying to my posts at all, but merely reposting original claims I had already debunked ad nauseum counts as changing the subject, then yes, that's what they did.

Anthony| 6.27.12 @ 11:27AM

Tomorrow could very well signify the end of our Constitutional Republic.
Mark Levin is correct, all three branches of our government are now devoted to the growth of the central state.
There are no checks and balances, only three seperate assaults on limited government and individual rights.
Be afraid, civil unrest is coming.

Gary B| 6.27.12 @ 12:08PM

"They again will claim that the Constitution cannot keep pace with the exigencies of our modern life. "

They feel individual liberty and personal responsibility have gone out of style. Most of us here feel otherwise. Unfortunately, many of our young people have accepted the new world order as the path of least resistance.

Well, as Anthony said, the path of maximum resistance is coming.

JD| 6.27.12 @ 3:21PM

Our nation's prosperity is measured by the size and power of its government, just as was true in ancient times. The Left must be getting nostalgic.

Gary B| 6.27.12 @ 3:42PM

I think you're right. In other words it's measured by how much money the government can shake out of the private sector... at the point of a gun, of course.

JD| 6.27.12 @ 4:30PM

Stop writing and get back to building the pyramid!

Who Knows?| 6.27.12 @ 12:27PM

How’s YOUR constitution?

Picking your nose, nitpicking about The Constitution, what’s the real world difference?

Hi falutin’ talk about the Federalist Papers!

Angels dance on pinheads, while individuals are so far “out of their body”, and focussed on the mind---which they are truly “out of”, as well---that we have the weighty spectacle of the public square ALREADY having morphed into the circus, over-full with fat ladies and gentlemen.

Oh, let me chew on my favorite tasty food, and swallow it, while I merely THINK about the Constitution, and how dangerously close we are to losing it. Americans long ago “lost it”, and I don’t refer to words on paper.

Bottom line---materialism has ALREADY won! The proof is before one’s eyes, daily, in public and/or when looking in a mirror. That’s some constitution!

Yes, the constituents, the members of our Grossing-Out-At-Sizzlers-All-You-Can-Eat society don’t need any words to explain themselves. Quietly viewing each other is quite enough “food for thought”.

As that prescient fatso, Jackie Gleason, put it---

And away we go!

Anthony| 6.27.12 @ 1:43PM

Dear Who Knows, Mayor Bloomberg of NY has a position open for assistant troll in charge of population management.
Or perhaps Obozo has a tzar position suited to your desire to limit human beings according to HHS guidelines.
I bet your degree in Gender Equality Studies qualifies you for these positions. Jackboots are de rigueur.
Then you can hang out with David Brooks at the NYT, who opines that our leaders KNOW BEST, and we must obey.
As the prescientNeil Young put it, "something's happening here, what is it ain't exactly clear, there's a man with a gun over there, telling me, I got to beware.......

Albertus Magnus| 6.27.12 @ 2:03PM

Do jackboots come in heels? Oh, the images that come to mind... :-)

Anthony| 6.27.12 @ 2:41PM

Not sure, contact Napolitano at HSS to see, and what colors are standard.
Napolitano in jackboots...... not even Viagra would do the trick.

Drunken Sailor| 6.27.12 @ 2:59PM

Very interesting discussions.

Anyone else notice that when it comes to a topic about the constitution our faithfull trolls vanish?

Gary B| 6.27.12 @ 3:44PM

Yes, you're right. Interesting...

John Navratil| 6.27.12 @ 4:01PM

Drunken Sailor,

It's not in their talking points. They've nothing to say. What could they say? That the definition of "people" has changed?

Drunken Sailor| 6.27.12 @ 5:01PM

I guess there was no HuffPo, NYTimes or DNC talking points about a "dead" piece of paper.

And they wonder why we don't take them very seriously when they scream that their wants are their rights. Go figure.

Thom| 6.27.12 @ 5:26PM

“a continuing weakness of Democracies is their lack of accountability”
Everywhere in life where individuals are free from accountability ruin follows. Examples of this are limitless. The Civil War changed and ultimately destroy an important check on the centralization of power, “states’ rights”. Starting in 1913 more “states’ rights” were removed from the framework and the central concept of a “republic” was made moot by the “progressive income tax” that delinked one’s responsibility from the action that take place in the voting booth. Allowing people to vote for something that they are spared the burden of is immoral at its base. Pandering to the lowest common denominator has never been associated with a virtue but here we are with unfunded liabilities 5 generations into the future, half the population not paying “progressive income taxes” to support that which they get in return for their votes and we still have people running for office promising to give citizens something they won’t have to pay for but paid for on the backs of a new class of slave…..
The Founders thought long and hard about the consequence of the quote above and gave us a “republic” (if we could keep it). The same man that warned us about keeping our new “republic” also said this which in today’s climate looks like prophecy, “Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become more corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters.”

Dixon| 6.27.12 @ 7:06PM

Tomorrow we will see if America has a shot to remain a Constitutional Republic or if the jog towards a hopeless entitlement society becomes a sprint.

The entitlement class is exploding. Meanwhile, the last 2, maybe 3 generations have rarely, perhaps never studied American history...let alone the Constitution. Taken together, one can see how the failed leadership of obamanation can cobble together 43-47% support for re -election.

We have already passed the fail safe point of 100% ....level of debt to GDP...the level where ALL republics have fallen throughout history.

If the SCOTUS lets the odious BOcare stand...they will have assured America's fall as this new entitlement will quickly pile up even more crushing debt....and encourage the fed leviathan to mandate even more behavior and spending.

If they overturn....there is some hope as long as Constitutional jurists remain in the majority. but if BHO finds a way to stay in power the balance will likely shift to liberal statists.

Pray for our great, under-appreciated Country. He will hear.

More Articles by J.T. Young

More Articles From A Further Perspective

Restrain the Abusive Administative State

May 22, 2013 | Doug Bandow

Flatten the IRS

May 20, 2013 | Ray V. Hartwell, III

Oops, Maybe Government is Tyrannical

May 17, 2013 | Marta H. Mossburg

Pick Obama’s Brain

May 16, 2013 | Paul Kengor

What Is It About Benghazi?

May 15, 2013 | Andrew B. Wilson

http://spectator.org/archives/2012/06/27/the-liberal-naysayers-vs-the-f

ADVERTISEMENT

Latest Headlines

Obama’s Assault on the First Amendment

George Neumayr|135 comments

Damage Control for Dummies

Matt Purple|75 comments

Time to Go for the Kill

Peter Ferrara|64 comments

Restrain the Abusive Administative State

Doug Bandow|23 comments

Disabling American Sovereignty

Iain Murray|12 comments

The Other Gosnells

Jordan Gonzalez|13 comments

Can He Unite Virginia’s GOP?

Carten Cordell|29 comments

Undoing the Brainwashing

Thomas Sowell|23 comments

The Spectacle Blog

Not Just the Media: First Amendment Under Attack

Quin Hillyer | 5:10PM

House Judiciary: Constitutional Rights Vital in Wartime

Luca Gattoni-Celli | 5:07PM

U.S. Admits 4 Americans Killed by Drones

Luca Gattoni-Celli | 4:35PM

Colorado Governor Gives “Reprieve” to Murderer

Ross Kaminsky | 4:24PM

Steven Crowder: Jesus vs. Muhammad

Ross Kaminsky | 3:58PM

Kaminsky’s Corollary to I, Pencil

Ross Kaminsky | 3:22PM

State Department: Iran Has Soldiers in Syria

Kaylin Bugos | 3:12PM

Former IRS Commissioner Refused to Say That Targeting Conservative Groups is Wrong

Benjamin Brophy | 2:27PM

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.