What the Constitution Doesn’t Mean
I lived in Houston in the early 1990s and went to a Presbyterian church where the pastor used to remind us to check ourselves for contradictions. He warned that we unknowingly hold to contradictions in our thinking, and that while these sometimes flesh themselves out in a way that makes them obvious and allows us to get rid of them, they often lie below the surface of our thinking, so that we carry about in our minds thoughts that are in conflict with one another and with reality.
And this practice of checking ourselves for contradictions came to mind again and again as I read Scott Ott’s new book Our Fickle Constitution — a book that not only provides a satirical look at the left’s approach to the Constitution, but which does so in a way that also reminds us, as conservatives, about what we know to be true about the Constitution as well.
In short, Ott exposes contradictions in thought.
Our Fickle Constitution focuses solely on the preamble to the Constitution, so it is concise. And the brevity serves Ott well in making his point in a way that is effective without being redundant.
Here is the preamble to the Constitution:
We, the People of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
These words, remarkable in any age to any reader who rightly understands what the framers were up against and what the framers intended for this nation, are perverted with purpose throughout Ott’s book. And the perversion proves to be a powerful demonstration of the contradictory and demeaning nature of leftist deconstructionalism.
In the book’s preface, Ott wades toward the preamble with phrases like “The deepest thoughts of the late-18th century comprise the shallow end of the intellectual pool for today’s jurists” and “Studying the Constitution requires a great deal of humility on your part. But don’t fret. You’ll know what it means when the judges and academics tell you.”
He adds: “The good news is, if you don’t agree with what the Constitution says today, hang in there – it’s not like the thing is engrossed on parchment and preserved in a case of titanium and high-tensile glass, surrounded by argon gas to protect it from decay. Everything changes, even the meaning of the Constitution.”
After the travesty of the Roberts decision, it is stunningly clear that we need to demand that our courts return to the practice of casting out any law or prior judgment that does not comport with the Constitution as written, regardless of how much improper or erroneous case law may exist underpinning these egregious decisions. The Constitution, as the supreme law of the land, should be paramount over whatever mountain of mistakes the liberal-left attorneys acting as judges have foisted on us. And that’s worth fighting another Civil War over…
Well, yes, but exactly how do we bell that cat? Just demanding that it be so hasn’t got much of a track record.
This is the great unaddressed problem underneath all conservative political thought and effort. We know where we want to go; how to get there is another matter entirely.
The trouble is that gov’t officials are on the take. All. The. Time. Money drives everything, including the corruption. What is out there that will compel the forging of honest & honorable leadership? In a relatively Godless, man-is-the-center type of society, the answers are quite elusive. This, IMO, is why we are in this mess & are having so much trouble finding the way out of it.
The answer to your question, I believe, was given by Thos Jefferson, when he left instructions for the care and watering of The Tree of Liberty.
As with ObamaCare itself, the Supreme Court was overwhelmed with complexity in dealing with such a sweeping piece of legislation and ambiguous argument.
So now, We are left with the task of defeating this monstrosity one piece at a time, in an unambiguous fashion, which makes it simpler to understand, and rule on, by the Supremes.
Mr. Ott knows the best way to reduce the power of the competition is through ridicule, and his is some of the most effective. And now, with the confusion of the Democrat rhetoric regarding the “decision”, we can use their own terminology against them.
>> Mr. Ott knows the best way to reduce the power of the competition is through ridicule, and his is some of the most effective. And now, with the confusion of the Democrat rhetoric regarding the “decision”, we can use their own terminology against them.
Thank you, Cybergeezer. (BTW, I wish that name were still available. Fits me.)
Live the Freedom,
Scott Ott
You are most welcome sir.
Thank you for your dedication and great sense of humor.
I keep hearing and reading that Americans are too strong and independent to succumb to the globalists/transnationalists/American Constitution trashers (see Ruth Bader Ginsburg).
I have my doubts, since said globalists seem to be scoring success after success.
I see where Hillary just gave $2 billion to the UN world environment crowd (partying, again, in Brazil) as a down payment on Barack’s promise a few years ago at some other international environmental conference that the US would pay its fair share in “reparations” to be distributed to 3rd world countries. Reparations are essentially guilt payments from so called prosperous countries to poorer countries, the underlying assumption being that country A’s wealth is directly responsible for country B’s lack of wealth. One of the proposals at the earlier conference was that country A would pay country B (in that case Indonesia) to not cut down its trees.
I kid you not.
“The UN” (God please end that organization) will be responsible, without restriction, for the redistribution of American taxpayers’ $2 billion. That means the money could end up anywhere, likely in some cretin’s personal pocket, as often happens with monies put at the UN’s disposal.
Today that organization is calling for a “billionaires’ tax” to help the world’s poor. Sounds just like Barack calling for “the rich” to cover his outrageous spending, never mind that entire personal fortunes could be confiscated and not put a dent in his very own personal $6 trillion.
…promote the general Welfare
Ted Baxter (aka Bill O’Reilly) responded to a question last night from a letter writer that the mention of general Welfare in the Constitution is where government accesses the right to build a huge bureaucracy to supervise individuals’ medical care. (I editorialize, his glib response was simply to cite that phrase as justification.)
With advice like that from the “we’re watching out for you” crowd, we’re screwed.
Yes, I too saw Bill refer to the ‘Promote’ the general welfare as the phrase that allows the Fed to interfer and pay for the health care of the Citizen. Evidently Mr. Bill never read the Federalist Papers to get a reading of the term ‘promote the general welfare’. I have sent an email to Fox and Bill notifying them that ‘Provide’ and ‘Promote’ are different actions and that promoting the general welfare is doing something that is for the enjoyment of the total population. Such as building the National Highway System. While Providing the health care to an individual with tax dollars is not general welfare, it is the personal welfare of that individual.
There’s also precedent for Congress’ power to tax; Specifically where the “TAX” results in the penalty of one group for the benefit of another group. (Although this fits in perfectly with the modus operandi of the Obama Regime).
Short article here:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304141204577508503320285454.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop
I’m sorry if I sound like a kook. My posts keep getting deleted so I assume they are too extreme for this blog site. Nonetheless, I maintain that we (conservatives) lost the culture decades ago, and now are reaping the results electorally.
We aren’t going to win the upcoming election. The electorate is split between the politically knowledgeable (30% right, 30% left) and the I-don’t-care independents (40%, lion’s share). These latter folks don’t pay attention to politics unless told to do so by their cultural heroes: actors, musicians, and athletes. These “heroes” are inevitably left-wing and pro-Obama.
Hoping that Romney and RINOs will save us is self-deluding. We need to prepare for the upcoming Dark Age. Go Galt: lower your profile and try to be as self-sufficient as possible. To do otherwise is to deny our descendants a fair opportunity to recover the Republic we lost for them.
I didn’t need to have this pointed out. I’m well aware of the wee-wee-ness of liberals.
You’re not getting all we-weed up, are you?
Live the Freedom,
Scott Ott
So, where is this passage about “fairness” that Ms. Pelosi keeps referring to?
I’ve heard the leftarded invoke the “originalist” slander-meme already; scary stuff! Denigrating original intent as if it were not only meaningless, but naive to hold to fixed principles! So, is Mr. Ott prescient, or just “overly” astute? I’m getting a copy of his book pronto!
@8.Uncle Vladdi: Here’s a potential experiment which just occurred to me.
What if somebody with some serious “conservative street cred”, like Scott, or yourself, concocted a bogus rendition of some part of the Constitution to support in cleverly dissimulated manner some of the Libtards’ favorite issues?
You know, something like “War of the Worlds” did in the ’30′s to take advantage of the many popular myths regarding a potential alien invasion ?
Anyway, my money’s on a very large number of Libtards coming right back at you to tell you what a “bunch of idiots” you are, and that the C is today, in any case, a dated, dead, document. (Only, I think they’d propbably use less kind language.) Personally, I think you, or Scott, or Cybergeezer would have the knowledge and skills to pull something like that off; maybe get Bill Whittle involved, too.
I have a hunch we could really embarrass the he** out of most of the Libtard “Nomenclatura”. Something tells me a lot of them would really fall for it, big time? It sure would put paid to their “originalist slander meme”, and their reps, for good!
I like your thinking, Roger.
(And thanks for the compliment).
Using the same tactics to attack them as they use; The repetition of a buzz word or term that we all get together and agree on, in use and pronunciation, over a broad spectrum of publication, would have to be accomplished as adroitly or better than they carry out. This would be necessary since repetition is the only way to make any impression on them at all.
It would have to be kept simple, and emphasized with every pronouncement.
Naturally, this would take organization, and a locality where the vetted “members” of this organization could log into, to be updated on the latest techniques, and to get pronunciation cues to the current buzzword; Like that used on dictionary sites.
Needless to say; We’d be up against the main stream media, which would be one of our most steadfast, well armed, opponents. The MSM thinks it has the power to shut down and/or overpower dissent, if it does not comply with their agenda.
This task would require a resolute squadron of constituents. And “sedition” would be a charge to be expected.