What Would a Return to the Constitution Entail?
Fortified by historic Republican electoral gains at the federal and state levels last November, Tea Party activists and the new generation of Republicans led by rising star freshman Senator Marco Rubio, House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan, and House Majority Leader Eric Cantor have reaffirmed their intention to return to the Constitution. To underscore that intention, Republican representatives kicked off the 112th Congress with a piece of provocative and potentially instructive political theater by, for the first time in the nation’s history, reading aloud the 224 year old document on the House floor. But what does such a return entail?
Some hard-driving conservatives see it as an opportunity to restore simplicity and purity to democratic self-government. Meanwhile, many influential progressive politicians and pundits are determined to hear in talk of return a reckless and reactionary repudiation of the modern welfare state.
In fact, an informed and thoughtful return to the Constitution will take seriously the devotion to individual liberty and limited government shared by the original Federalist proponents of the Constitution and their Anti-Federalist opponents. It will learn from the intricately separated and blended political institutions that the Constitution established to impose restraint and allow for energy and efficiency. And it should culminate in the recovery of the spirit of political moderation that the Constitution embodies and on which its preservation depends.
It is conservatives’ good fortune that political moderation is central to the November mandate, just what the nation now needs, and at the core of the abiding conservative mission in America.
In recent times, respecting electoral mandates has proved a stumbling block for both parties. President Obama misread or disregarded the mandate of 2008, seeing in the electorate’s dismay with the Bush administration and distrust of Republican stewardship of the economy a popular authorization — or golden opportunity — to undertake large-scale progressive reform. In so doing, he repeated the mistake of the 1990s Republican revolutionaries, which was to confuse aversion to the Clintons’ health care reform with a license to effect fundamental change in the federal government’s role.
As many have noted, again this election year majorities did not endorse transformation of the political system along the lines sought by the most uncompromising elements of the winning party. Rather, they sought to rein in the transformative ambitions of the losing party.
What needs to be added is that the moderation for which the electorate has been yearning is inscribed in the Constitution’s origins and is prescribed by its principles, or better, by the manner in which it weaves together the variety of principles that animate it.
Amidst justified conservative determination today to aggressively reassert the central constitutional imperative to limit government, it should be recalled that the Constitution was also born out of the pressing need to create a larger, stronger, and more centralized government. The decision in Philadelphia in the summer of 1787 to abandon repair of the Articles of Confederation and instead replace them with a new constitution stemmed from the need to establish a national government capable of levying and collecting necessary taxes, regulating commercial life to promote economic prosperity, and providing for the national defense in a dangerous world.
The founders won ratification for the Constitution by arguing that to preserve liberty, government’s powers must be limited but ample, constrained but energetic, grounded in interest but elevated by virtue, and based on the consent of the governed while aimed at securing natural rights that are not subject to majority whim or will.
In other words, political moderation, or the balancing of competing political principles, is a constitutional imperative. It is also a demanding virtue. Although often suspected, and sometimes serving, as a mask for spinelessness, the impostor should not be confused for the real thing. Political moderation, at least of the sort that the Constitution calls for, doesn’t mean selling out principles under pressure or making a principle of pragmatism. Rather, it is exercised in recognizing the weight and reach of competing constitutional principles, and adopting policies, fashioning laws, and acting, at once judiciously and decisively, to harmonize them.
The best one-word description of this article would be overblown. If that description were supplemented by unprincipled, there would be no need to read the article at all.
The author refuses to come to grips with what constitutionalism means and requires. He might have a tenuous grip on why the federal Constitution was written – he asserts correctly that under the Articles of Confederation, the federal government could not levy taxes – but he appears determined to assert complete nonsense as well:
I could cite additional fatuities, but no doubt a PajamasMedia reader can find them for himself. Suffice it to say that the author has his own, extra-constitutional agenda, largely a matter of “grandfathering” the greater part of the unconstitutional legislation and regulation that’s put us in our current, precarious state. In service to this agenda, he’s woven group of windy generalities, feel-good phrases, and outright falsehoods into a receiving blanket for a soft-social-democratic state that would differ from what we suffer now only – and only perhaps – in its rate of growth.
But here’s the nadir of the matter: Given political realities as they stand, our politicians are likely to follow Mr. Berkowitz’s guidance in preference to the hard-edged demands of the Constitution as it’s written. He evinces a desire to reach a modus vivendi with the evils already accomplished, a conservatism that seeks only to halt history in its tracks rather than to undo the crimes of the century past. As such, his essay will appeal to many who have no stomach for true principles or genuine, and genuinely hard, political combat.
One of the few bungled readings of the Big C yesterday that had to be reread was the sentence stating that the Federal Government is responsible for protecting each state from invasion. One would have to be a really highly-paid lawyer to argue it does not say that.
But what is our Left-wing Administration doing? Why they are suing a state that is being invaded, because the state is trying to protect itself. If that is not a high crime, please give me an example of a high crime so I may learn from those wiser than I.
Bravo Fred, Just read another article cautioning Conservatives against alienating the Hispanics population which will grow to 133 million by 2050. (Seems right given the “anchor baby” welfare incentives to breed fatherless kids. ) “Progressive” elites know very well how to harness irresponsible private behavior to maximize their political advantage.
I say to the new Congress Stand firm on Constitutional principles and end the malignant poverty breeding welfare state which diminishes us all.
Another Operation Wetback, started today, would insure that the “hispanic” (a made up word) population wouldn’t reach 133 million by 2050.
Francis, Thank you for the scathing and brilliant insights. I am restored by your comments. m
Me too!
Francis: You nailed it!
You can’t get into too much trouble if you support a smaller Federal government, a lot less Federal spending, lower taxes, and less regulation and government intrusion into a person’s life. To be for the opposite of all these things can only mean that you’re either a socialist or worse, a communist, which is what most Democrats are these days. The Democrats have been hijacked by the far left and the socialists and I think the American public has finally woken up to this fact. So if Republicans stick to the original principles that made this country (and the Constitution) great, they can’t go wrong. The Republicans should be bold, be brave, and stamp down these socialists that threaten this union.
Francis, I would argue, that what we have now is democratic corporatism, and is practiced by both political parties with the real differences between the two being which entities get the swag. Meanwhile liberty, federalism and limited government are forgotten. What we are seeing, is the development of increasingly authoritarian structures (TSA, Homeland Security and other aggressive regulatory/enforcement agencies [nota bene: EPA agents carry guns]). This is an incredibly bad development, particularly in light of the current administration’s willingness to rule by decree via regulatory means. Genuine political combat is clearly what we need before we get to the other kind of combat. Repeal (the many) unconstitutional laws, rollback regulations (and indeed, I could make the case for eliminating the delegation of legal authority to create regulations altogether), impeach (several dozen federal judges really need to go “pour encourager les autres”). Randy Barnett’s federalism amendment interests me, but I think I’d just prefer to repeal the 17th Amendment. It goes without saying that a large number of cabinet level departments should be de-funded (education, agriculture, commerce, energy, hhs, hud, labor, homeland security, etc.).
SIMPLE:
1. Eliminate “Regulatory Agencies” and fire 90% of sniveling servants.
2. Sunset all laws, and run new ones by a Constitutionality Council.
3. Institute capital punishment for service disloyal to the constituition.
The Supreme Court was *supposed* to be the “Constitutionality Council”. Now most of them are corrupt. It is corrupt to channel what the Founders might have said if they lived today, when their mission is to interpret what it actually *says* (and only when there is actually some ambiguity among reasonable people – like what exactly a “Natural Born Citizen” means). I’m not sure how you are going to do better with your extra-constitutional council.
We have a Living Constitution – it grows to meet new challenges by amendment. It dies by ignoring it in favour of some subjective ephemeral document that exists only in the minds of Marxist judges.
Addition to Pelaut’s Simple List:
4. All proposed rules / interpretations / forms / suggestions / administrative actions / guidelines from any federal agency are null & void unless passed by Congress and signed by President.
(I can’t see any Constitutional provision for ANY of the above unilateral actions by the agencies nor do I see any provision for delegation of these by Congress to the agencies)
To Mark E.
Excelllent idea. First it would make it more difficult to pass new regulations, since requiring approval by congress, especially the senate, would slow things a lot. It also completely prevents the present practice of regulatory agencies constantly trying to expand their powers into new areas not envisioned in the original legislation that authorized them. And if a regulation turns out to be stupid, or oppressive to ordinary innocent individuals, congressmen would have to directly answer for the stupidity, instead of blaming the executive, or the regulators, as they do now.
The Constitution is an amazing document. Think about the men who wrote it, debated it, debated it again, pondered and refined it, then finally signed it. Its Intent. Our Founders were just as amazing. Nobel. Virtuous. Honest. Moral. Just. and they were, dare I say it…Religious. Think about that for a minute.
They were scholarly men, traveled, for their time even worldly men. They were Innovators. Entrepreneurs, Educated, Writers, Employers… They knew there was tyranny and evil in the world…They knew of Goverment’s without ‘controls’ or ‘limits’ to their authority over those they governed. They knew of the evil and tyranny that can be produced by power…
They knew that “what the Government giveth, the Government can taketh away…”
I don’t believe the constitution stray from us, because of a changing world, rather we have strayed from the Constitution in spite of a changing world, and it’s concise intent.
Think about this too. I have a copy of the Constitution proofed word for word against the original archived in Washington DC. It is 34 pages.
Our ‘Modern’ Government passed ‘a’ bill (Law)in 2010 that is 2,700 pages… ….Against the wishes (will) of the American people…
Another example of many: Our ‘Modern’ Government will inflict on us a 2,700 page bill against our will, but will refuse to ‘enforce’ their own laws regarding ‘illegal’ immigration, which ‘is’ the ‘will’ of the people…
I rest my case
And English!!!!
Michael (in England)
And, Yes, ‘English’ – I stand Corrected.
Bravo Faith, “Inflict” indeed. The most intelligent & critically astute commentary I have stumbled upon in a year. So much hopeful evidence of intelligent life on Earth.
And, respect any subsequent SCOTUS decisions on particular provisions or amendments, like this on the 14th Amendment:
it is the last case that has made it’s way to the SCOTUS on the matter… it may have been in 19898, but it’s the last case on the matter o it is the law…
http://supreme.justia.com/us/169/649/case.html
the SCOTUS ruled that citizenship is not granted just because you’re born in the USA
tough read, but clear on decision
You’ve known for a long time that today’s crop of Liberals has little or no respect for the document whose principles individuals in all branches of government take an Oath to uphold.
In line with Barry’s expressed dyspepsia over the Constitution’s litany of “negative liberties” (where the Constitution specifically limits the power of the federal government over the individual, especially in the Bill of Rights) all kinds of Progressives consider that antiquated old document simply out of date with today’s views on the human condition.
The notion of enduring principles (ones that transcend the fact of television or the invention of the internet or arguments about a whole host of social issues) simply escapes these modern morons, many of them almost as dumb as Ezra “the small” Klein.
Unfortunately, Supreme Court justice Stephen Breyer and the 3 other Liberals on the court (like the Wise Latina) seem to feel similarly about the Constitution and consider that the stuff between their own ears and European ideas of “justice” etc. are far more enlightened than the profound knowledge (most notably of the deleterious nature of over-arching government*) of those crusty old Founders.
*All-pervasive, all-inclusive government is Barry’s Ideal
Berkowitz lost me at “repudiation of the modern welfare state.” Far from being “reckless and reactionary,” it is the sanity of self-preservation.
Yep….
I have no idea what this article is talking about.
The Constituition defines the limits of what government can do. It makes more sense now than it did in the 18th century. But aside from that, it is the framework for the country. If it was a bad framework, than the United States would not have become the most successful nation in the history of the world. To change or ignore the framework is utter lunacy, except that it is clear the people who seek to do so are not lunatics; they are power mad wannabe despots who see the Constitution as the main impediment in their quest for total power.
The root issue is even more simple than the deliberately spare Constitution. On the one hand, you have a country that has led the world to prosperity and justice never before imagined …the United States. On the other hand, you have dozens of forms of statist, socialist, fascist, royalist, communist, totalitarian governments that have succeeded only in controlling populations to the betterment of a tiny group of elites who own and control every aspect of society. At the extremes, those governments have slaughtered hundreds of millions of citizens who dared to disagree with dictatorial demands.
Which path would any sane and thinking citizen pick?
Sheesh, a guy writes an apparently fair, if moderate essay on how we can reasonably bring the Constitution back into the discussion, and is immediately jumped on because his pitchfork is not being brandished sufficiently. I’m shocked, I tell you, just shocked.
The “moderate” position between what is constitutional and what’s not is… what? Unconstitutional, I’ll bet.
Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty and we citizens of these United States are in the fix we’re in now because too many of us relaxed our vigilance. Did enough folks wake up in 2010? Will we be overrun by trancers again in 2012 just as we were in 2008?
“I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue!”
– Barry Goldwater
Moderation in the application of Constitutional principles? Picking and choosing which parts of the Constitution we wish to apply and which we shall ignore? Which parts are relevant and which are outmoded? How does that differ from the liberal position that the Constitution is a “living document” that can be twisted to fit or ignored at will? If that were the case then Ezra Klein would be right, the Constitution would have no binding power on anything. I refuse to believe that.
Thank you Peter for a great article about rebranding the Conservative Agenda. But is still boils down to unsustainable government spending. Doesn’t it?
We at Libertysoup.org believe voters can’t wait for a Congress that spends $7,000,000 a minute to reform itself… The 535Project lets voters INSIST on affordable government NOW!
by setting strict spending limits
consistently monitoring spending behavior & reform results
imposing real deterrents to irresponsible Congressional behavior
(http://www.libertysoup.org/Home_1.html)
“The decision in Philadelphia in the summer of 1787 to abandon repair of the Articles of Confederation and instead replace them with a new constitution stemmed from the need to establish a national government capable of levying and collecting necessary taxes, regulating commercial life to promote economic prosperity, and providing for the national defense in a dangerous world.”
UTTERLY FALSE!
This entire article is horseshit written by a progressive who knows nothing of the Constitiution or the reasons for (and against) it. The author cites the Federalist and the Anti-Federalist writings; but, has apparently not bothered to read them. It reads like something written by a person who learned well at the feet of his LEFTIST Law Professors who, themselves, haven’t a clue as to the goals and purposes of the U.S. Constitution.
It appears to me that Berkowitz is himself a “progressive”. And, like all “progressives”, refuses to even define the word “progress” that he has peppered his ill-educated article with.
Garbage.
The rot is deeper and spread wider than you think. Have you looked at any U.S. high school civics textbooks or college Government 101 textbooks in the last quarter-century?
That jumped out at me, too. They weren’t trying to create some new utopia, they were replacing the functions that were formerly provided by the Crown, or addressing specific grievances against the Crown. But first and foremost, they were providing for an effective military with which to fight the revolution. Everything included in the original constitution (including the Bill of Rights) does one of these things. Utopianism hadn’t even been invented yet in the Enlightenment sense.
Repeal Title 42. Close down the Department of Agriculture, given their history of Pigford bigotry. Certainly the founders were familiar with agriculture, and gave Congress no powers to regulate it. Close down the deparment of Education. Certainly the framers were familiar with education and gave Congress no powers to regulate it. Repeal Obama care. Certainly the framers were familiar with medicine and gave the Congress no powers to regulate it, though providing military education is necessary and proper.
Smaller goverment is what America needs and it’s what the 112th Congress will give us. We the People have spoken and the new Congress is listening…at least they say they are.
The first order of business is we want Obamacare repealed. A smaller government means getting government out of the health car business. Check out http://www.takingonissues.com for the truth about Obamacare.
SHANNON
The Government should get out and stay out of ‘ALL’ Business…The 2,700 page HC Bill that no one knows ‘whats in it’ no one can read, yet alone decipher is proof of that!
“.. regulating commercial life to promote economic prosperity…”
In other words making citizens buy any damn thing the government orders them to or face seizure of their property by government thugs.
Ummm, Uriel –
Do you have anything, any cites to back up your claims? Because without that, you’re just hot air.
Pontificate if you must, but be able to back it up. And you didn’t even hint at trying.
A new alternative is to create a new national court, the Second Court of the United States, that is uniquely *not* a federal court, but a logical *restraint* on the federal courts, the congress, and the executive.
To start with, because America has a surfeit of federal judges who whimsically assert a federal intrusion into all varieties of State law, every year now, some 8,000 federal cases are appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States, clogging the system.
Because the Supreme Court can only hear perhaps the “top” two dozen of these, the vast majority revert to whatever decision was made by the federal circuit courts, for better or worse. But no matter what they decide, it accepts the notion that it *should* have been heard by the federal courts in the first place.
A Second Court of the United States would be composed, not of federal judges, but of State judges, *appointed* specifically by the legislatures of the individual States, much as how the US senate was originally intended.
Importantly, their role would *not* be to determine if a decision was constitutional or not, but to determine if a circuit court decision on the way to the Supreme Court *deserved* to be in federal court at all, or if it should be taken from the federal court system and returned to its State of origin, as a State, not federal, matter. They would have the constitutionality decisions of the lower federal courts to aid them in this determination.
Of those 8,000 or so cases, it is likely that the vast majority would be taken out of federal jurisdiction and returned to the States, as *not* being a federal matter to decide. Likewise, many decisions made by federal judges that are oppressive to the States would also be returned.
Otherwise, the Second Court of the United States would also have an original jurisdiction: to be the first court to receive lawsuits by the States against the federal government, and by the federal government against the States.
Right now such lawsuits, like the one by the Justice Department against Arizona, have to go through a long, time consuming, and unnecessary process.
So instead, by going directly to the Second Court of the United States, there would be an opportunity for all 50 States to tell the federal government to “back off”, in such matters as the Justice Department suing Arizona over its immigration law.
As well, the States would have standing to sue over most anything the federal government did that impinged on their rights, be it laws, bureaucratic regulations, executive orders, presidential signing statements, or judicial precedent.
The great value of a Second Court of the United States would be that for the first time, the United States would have a means, an institution, whose purpose would be to “trim”, to reduce, the federal government. To pull the federal government back from performing actions not authorized by the constitution.
This is because it would not only limit federal judges from their excesses, but because the individual States could challenge the laws of congress and the bureaucracy at least at *some* point in the process. And the SCOTUS would remain as a check on unbridled anti-federalism.
A constitutional amendment creating an *institution* like the Second Court of the United States, would have the institution to defend itself, and its purpose, something a limiting amendment could not do.
Somebody to fight back for the States and the people, against a monolithic and intrusive federal government.
Excellent post Robert, A great way to curb “Regressive/progressive” Judicial tyranny. I would like to suggest your innovative Second Court of the United States solution to the website listed here. Where can I get more details. thank you. m
The idea for a Second Court of the United States is still formative, but is based on the idea that there is 200+ years of “housekeeping” that is needed in the constitution, yet the progressive meme introduced into the public schools at the start of the 20th Century, that “A constitutional convention is unthinkable. It would be controlled by radicals”, while utterly false, has taken a firm hold on the public sensibility. Likewise, the 17th Amendment is unlikely to be repealed, because the public will clutch at its deceitful promise of “greater democracy”, not realizing it strips the ability of the States to defend the people from a runaway federal government.
So there is a vast amount of detritus that needs to be eliminated from the federal government. How best to do it? As well, how to reduce the power of the federal government to its proper framework, and to restore a balance between the people, the States, and the federal government.
The States are the key. By restoring their power, with a functioning body right in the center of the federal government, but not part of the federal government, they can act on a continual basis to limit the congress, the bureaucracy, the judiciary, and the “imperial presidency”, all at once. And not just for what they do now, but what they have done in the past and might do in the future.
Please pass the idea around.
We don’t need to add any more bullshit to the Constitution, such as “Second Courts” or any other sorts of crap. What we need to do is get the balls to impeach the bastards who preside as judges that have been disregarding the Constitution as it was written. This power is already ensconced in the Constitution, yet we can’t get the gumption to implement the necessary corrective action. If something as simple as kicking out repugnant judges can’t be done, then why should we think something much more complicated, like “Second Courts”, will bring a better result? It won’t!
We may, indeed, need to have another bloody Civil War to stop this train wreck of a hundred years of encroaching Marxism and the ongoing tyranny of leftist attorneys!
What we need to do is get the balls to impeach the bastards who preside as judges that have been disregarding the Constitution as it was written.
What he said.
While it may be enjoyable to have an emotional outburst, do you really think another civil war would be better than another constitutional amendment? And there are about 3,600 federal judges and magistrates in the US, rather too many to impeach.
The US constitution is a marvelous document, full of checks and balances, but after 200 years, it needs housekeeping. Even the constitution of the Confederate States of America made several corrections, that had nothing to do with slavery, that were obviously needed after less than 100 years. But these were never integrated into the US constitution, for obvious reasons.
But if you go down the list of problems, most of them point to the same problem: the States have become too weak and the federal government too strong. They are out of balance.
The federal government will never correct itself, no matter who is elected, because they are overwhelmed with the notion that if they could have “just a little more power”, they would make things right. Just like a gambling addict, they need an intervention. But this intervention cannot come from the people, it has to come from the States. The people have other work to do.
A Second Court of the United States would do many things at once, right in the heart of the beast. It would be able to overcome the ambitions of all but 9 of the federal judges. But they would give the States the right of nullification, which has been a fight since Washington and Jackson. And it would give the States the ability to challenge the “imperial presidency”, that has been needed since Marbury v. Madison (1810).
It would give the States the ability to challenge all the federal agencies, the EPA, DEA, DOE, DOT, Education, etc. And it would give the States the ability to protect the people from federal intrusion into their lives, with things like the bloated census, the Income Tax, and the massive federal security apparatus.
In short, a constitutional amendment to create a Second Court of the United States would have the effect of a dozen other constitutional amendments rolled into one. It creates a *mechanism* to reduce the size of the federal government.
Because conservatism defines itself relative to the current position of its more liberal opponent, it has come occupy space that has been abandoned by a leftward-moving opposition. Congratulations.
The NYT does not have an “outdated” vision of progressivism. The term was from the beginning a perversion of language by inversion, the first rule in the leftist playbook.
de Tocqueville-
The word “progressif” must have been suggested to a French writer by the Devil himself it is such bad French. What a face the illustrious dead, in whose society I live, would have made at it!
It is an especially difficult challenge for the intellectual to consider the possibility that he is in fact far less sophisticated than a peculiar cabal of dead white men, but those old boys are full of surprises, and when we care to look they are the gift that keeps on giving.
Implement Pournelle’s Principles: Subsidiarity and Transparency, and
allow the self-organizing capability of a free society do the rest.
The Tea Party should revive the concept of states as the Laboratories
of Democracy. Yes, I know that Brandeis was a ‘Scientific Socialist’
but truth is where you find it:
“It is one of the happy incidents of the federal system that a single courageous state may, if its citizens choose, serve as a laboratory; and try novel social and economic experiments without risk to the rest of the country.”
How about one constitutional amendment that defines how Article 1.8.18 “Necessary and Proper” should operate? And 1.8.3 “Interstate Commerce” and finally Amendment X, “Each state retains its sovereignty…”
Let’s tell the courts how far is too far — just one amendment could set things right.
And… for things that will have to persist for years or decades, such as Social Security, I would like to see sunset clauses that give us plenty of time to honor the commitments made during the rogue phase of our history.
In a word: revolution. Get rid of the scum that culminated with the abomination in the WH.
Any chance for that: none.
Americans (just like the Romans under Romulus Augustus) are apathetic, indifferent, resigned to a perverted fatalism and, above all, expecting either some deus ex machina or someone else to cure the social desease for them (but not them, sitting comfortably in their sofas of their foreclosed homes, drinking, watching decadent reality shows and corrupt political reports, while expecting their government check).
Who says history doesn’t repeat itself?
Except that in this case it isn’t the Ostrogoths, but islam ante portas, (well beyond the gates now).
Could you be a little bit less specific? I think a tiny bit of actual content crept in…
I guess I can understand the vague generalities; Actually hewing to the Constitution at this point would entail a wholesale rollback of government, to an extent that’s almost certainly politically infeasible.
It would return most rights to the states, where they belong.
I would keep in mind that when the Republican leadership starts doing things like reading the Constitution from the floor, they’re engaging in a risk-free way of throwing red meat to their base. And it probably means that they’re about do perform some seriously non-conservative shenanigans.
So while people like the author of this article and many of the commenters are fantasizing about rewriting the Constitution to conform to the current right-wing policy agenda, Republicans in Congress have a green light to do absolutely nothing substantive about the deficit.
Which is why we showed so many of them to the door in 2010.
It’s a problem of incentive. The temptation to amass power and spend other peoples money is too great.
1. All representatives are vote is directly proportional to the number of people who voted FOR them.
2. In a regular spending bill, each representative determines how much of the tax revenue from only the people who voted for him to allocate to the bill.
3. At the end of the fiscal year the unspent tax money in each representatives account is refunded to his voters proportionate to the amount they were taxed.
4. All laws and regulations that impose a tax, fine, or punishment must be passed by representatives who were elected by over 50% of the population.
The problem with a “Return to Constitution” is that we have reached the end-stage of democracy where about 50% of the voters want to plunder the wealth from somebody else.
The entire appeal of the Progressive/Socialist/Communist movement is “free stuff” for the supporters of the regime. And you can fool most of the people, most of the time with this proposition. The last 70 years of American politics demonstrates this quite clearly.
This phase ends badly with a large number of innocents ruined for life and a brazen dictatorship in power for the remainder of a generation.
The return to a limited Consitutional government comes afterwards.
We could short-circuit this evolution and avoid a lot of misery by limiting the right to vote. Specifically, voting rights should be denied to:
*Persons currently sentenced to prison or released on parole.
*Persons who are not citizens of this country.
*Persons who are deceased.
*Persons who are imaginary.
*Persons receiving public assistance payments (including Social Security, ADC, or Unemployment Compensation)
*Persons directly employed by State or Federal governments – other than Military personel.
*Persons under the age of 25 or over the age of 80.
In-person appearance and absolute positive biometric identification should be required for voter registration.
Three things wrong with your list:
Persons directly employed by State or Federal governments – other than Military personel.
You’re making simplistic assumptions about the biases of such individuals
*Persons under the age of 25 or over the age of 80.
While the lowering of the voting age to 18 was a dumb idea, raising all the way to 25 ain’t going to fly. Excluding seniors just because they’re over 80 assumes rampant senility; again, simplistic
In-person appearance and absolute positive biometric identification should be required for voter registration.
Biometrics? You’re kidding, right?
This talk of mandate is unconstitutional. No candidate get mandate to do anything. A candidate is elected to fill a function and be serviant to the constitution as he honest see it. Any candidates that say he have a mandate after winning a election don’t understand his role in the constitutional framework.
Yep!
The premise of this article is completely wrong. The Constitution is one of the most radical documents in the history of mankind. It cannot be preserved by compromising with philosophies and principles that are diametrically opposed and fundamentally incompatible with it. I.e. the idea that your need imposes an obligation on others.
28. sgtPUSMC
I.e. the idea that your need imposes an obligation on others.
_________________
This thought process is called indoctrination. The ‘grand experiment’we all have been ‘forced’ to endure the last two years is fizzling out… Thanks to the Tea Party, American Patriots, and Freedom loving people in these United States. AND Good men like Speaker of the House Boehner and his ilk. Socialism (Forced Charity) is not something the American People will embrace and that is what the fight is about. None of this is what our Constitution intends …Progressives/Liberalism and Political Correctness is what is doing our country in!
“The premise of this article is completely wrong.”
Yep!
While I may take exception to some of the author’s premises, including him trying valiantly to paint the founders as “moderates” or something, he is right on the money about the winning parties being confused (and I would add, arrogant) about what “mandate” they were given by the voters.
We are a center-right country based on decades of evidence coming from all directions, and that reality has to be taken into acount as part of smart governance.
I would prefer small government — or think I do. Not a single American alive has any experience or memory as an adult of a small national American government. The last time we had what could be called “small” government was prior to Herbert Hoover, thus even preceding the New Deal (it was Hoover who first proposed that Americans had a “right” to home ownership, by the ay). And even then we had outrageous government intrusion in the form of Prohibition, and Progressivism had first reared its creepy, ugly head even before that. Does anyone remember what happened in 1913?
With that long historical legacy and our current center-right reality, I understand that as a “rightie” I have to share the governing sentiments of centrists to some extent. Frankly, I see no need to share any power arrangements with leftists whatsoever; they have throughly delegitimized themselves.
Point is: we’ll be lucky to get back to “big government,” much less “small” government. You read me right: we do not have “big” government now, we have COLOSSAL government under Obama, who, in turn, inherited HUGE government from Bush. First things first: let’s get pared back down to big government, and then we can continue the debate about making government even smaller.
Another thing:
The debate should not just be about big, intrusive government, but also the increasing intrusion, power and influence of non-state actors such as activist organizations, academics, unions, and lawyers. All these entities (and more) have arogated enormous leverage and great power to themselves, and often with the help of federal and corporate funding. They have all become extortionists, and should be subject to RICO statutes for the ways they financially sustain themselves. They have become as much of a threat to freedom, including the oft-ignored freedom to be left alone, as any federal or state entity. They are parasites who should be starved of public funding, and who should be aggressively prosecuted when they go after private entities for “contributions” and “concessions” to the “community.” They are criminals and should be treated as such.
29/30. Don Rodrigo
Hear! Hear! 30 – Nailed!
Where in the Constitution does it say it is ‘mandatory’ to fund these parasites anyway?
Here’s an idea on how to “sell” the Constitution and the tough constraints that we conservatives are asking for. The functions and funding of our overblown “social safety net” are filtered through federal bureaucracy which strips us of dollar value and efficiency at delivering charitable services. The federal definition of who is needy continues to expand the welfare rolls. This unsustainable practice must now end.
Charity works best at local and state levels. Here, we can better identify those who truly need help, and eliminate a lot of fraud and waste that the current faceless and isolated systems cannot.
We need to transfer or eliminate thirty percent of federal expenditures across the board just to get close to matching current tax revenue. The selling point is reduction of payroll taxes; we get a raise when we succeed at returning usurped power to where it belongs. Perhaps it’s somewhat perverse, but popularizing the disassembly of the welfare state will become easier if people get “paid” to do the right thing.
But you are going to see a hell of a jump in your state taxes. We have a number of states out there that are already on the verge of bankruptcy. In fact, I’d have trouble making a case that our states, or towns for that matter, are doing a significantly better job at keeping a handle on their expenses.
“In other words, political moderation, or the balancing of competing political principles, is a constitutional imperative. It is also a demanding virtue.”
This whole article strikes me as the pragmatist’s view of liberty and rights without any idea of what is “right”.
I agree with Francis W. Porretto in comment #1. This is a totally unprincipled perspective and is exactly what has led us to the mess in which we find ourselves today.
To answer the question of the article; Years of retooling the education system of the United States. I’ll never see it in my lifetime, and you won’t either.
And some data in another article to substantiate my claim:
http://spectator.org/archives/2011/01/07/uneducated-to-serve
Oh, garbage!
Not the article, but the first comment. It’s a big, wide country, with lots of people in lots of different situations, that give rise to legitimate concerns that must be balanced, if we are to meet the stated goals of our Constitution. The parochialism of the first comment is just as damaging as the as the assumption by progressives that they alone have all the answers. The reason we are in our current difficulty is because principled people assume that their perspective is the ONLY legitimate perspective.
The concerns of the people should not have to be balanced because the constitution was designed to protect the rights of individuals to pursue their own happiness, without the legal ability to make claims on others and vice versa. The founding fathers most certainly had a specific perspective when they formed the Constitution, explained in the Declaration of Independence. You’re suggesting the perspective of any random group or person regarding the Constitution is equally valid, even by law. That’s called rule by whim and this is exactly why he called the article (and you) unprincipled.
State Citizens wrote and ratified the original US Constitution. Today’s 14th Amendment “Constitution” governs “persons subject to the jurisdiction”, and state residents.
Can you imagine the founding fathers considering themselves “subject to the jurisdiction”, or mere residents?
…our overextended and fraying social safety net…
Is not within a power ceded to Congress by the Constitution. Please review Article I, Section 8 of the document.
Yes, Mr. Poretto has called attention to this and other grave faults in the article but some things cannot easily repeated too often in this Age of Stupidity.
Watching HBO John Adams mini-series on DVD. This series or ones like it
should be run on all TV channels from now until the election so people once again understand why America IS>and how we got here!
I absolutely agree, but I defy you to watch the John Adams series without being forced to realize how much the country has grown and changed. There is some magical thinking going on here to think or imply that we can transform the country back to what is was 1776-1800. We need to watch a hundred shows including all the booms and busts, the industrial revolution, the canal, railroads, airlines, Wars, Prohibition, the Great Depression, the Cold War etc. What would John Adams have said about “Don’t ask, don’t tell.”? We could also ask him about the Alien and Sedition Acts etc.
Bwah bwah bwah. Oh oh. Straw dog alert: “There is some magical thinking going on here to think or imply that we can transform the country back to what is was 1776-1800.”
Funny, D, I couldn’t find a single person here who suggested they wanted to transform the country back in time. All they seem to want to do is enforce the oath politicians take to protect and defend the Constitution. If you don’t like something in it, there is a process to change it, now isn’t that so.
The following is definitely slanted left as one would expect from a NYT blog, but the question about the version of the Constitution which the Repubs decided to read is an interesting one. I want the WHOLE thing read because it does raise some valid questions about the absolutist original intent position and is a history lesson in itself of the long and winding road by which we got to 2011. Maybe one of the writers here would like to tackle the issue.
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/01/07/the-constitution-sort-of/?ref=opinion
So every time a law is referenced, one needs to reread what it law or laws it replaced if any. What is the value of repealed laws to today’s business? And please give examples of where this has been done before.
D-White, The Ping Pong Tongue and the Pick It Fence might try out as a Little League Umpire. Then you would have real power over real people.
Imagine, a Sarah type (what else) approaches you on a disputed call with that look in her eye. Simply rip out the NYT and tell her to read it. That will teach her! Ball four, your kid is out lady! On the other hand, maybe this is a home run lady! Yes, that fence is in that place for a reason, lady. No, I don’t use my tongue as a paddle – when I go canoeing.
Drawing pictures of mountains that look like bumps,
And thrashing the air with his hands.
“What Would a Return to the Constitution Entail?”
Abolishing the current government and starting over from scratch.