Setting the Record Straight
All right, I’ve ignored these articles for a week or so now, but enough’s enough. We’ve seen a series of columns claiming that the Right or the Tea Party, or Just Plain Scary People “worship” or fetishize“* the Constitution. The latest is this one from The New Yorker‘s Jill Lepore:
If you haven’t read the Constitution lately, do. Chances are you’ll find that it doesn’t exactly explain itself. Consider Article III, Section 3: “The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.” This is simply put—hats off to the committee of style—but what does it mean? A legal education helps.
Ezra Klein was right — nobody can understand the Constitution because it was written over one hundred years ago in old-timey language! But more seriously, to those of us who worship this particular idol, Lepore has these words of warning:
The Constitution is ink on parchment. It is forty-four hundred words. And it is, too, the accreted set of meanings that have been made of those words, the amendments, the failed amendments, the struggles, the debates—the course of events—over more than two centuries. It is not easy, but it is everyone’s. It is the rule of law, the opinions of the Court, the stripes on William Grimes’s back, a shrine in the National Archives, a sign carried on the Washington Mall, and the noise all of us make when we disagree. If the Constitution is a fiddle, it is also all the music that has ever been played on it. Some of that music is beautiful; much of it is humdrum; some of it sounds like hell.
No one I know thinks the Constitution is perfect. On the Left, like Lepore has just done in her lengthy article, they debate what the Constitution means. They want to know how this clause or that might be stretched to cover the progressive power-grab of the moment. But on the right, we’re pretty certain what the text means. Instead, we love debating how we’d amend the Constitution — how we’d try to perfect an imperfect law. Which, if we really worshipped the thing, would be a bit like listening to the Sermon on the Mount and frequently interrupting Jesus with, “Yes, but…!”
What we recognize is that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land. That is, what it says must be followed, until the text is amended or a new basic law enacted. Because a Constitution that is not knowable, a Constitution that is twisty-stretchy and dictated by the needs of the moment, is no Constitution at all. When the law becomes whatever the current ruling clique decrees, then we have taken the first step (and middle, and last) on the road to serfdom.
Yes, there will be misunderstandings and fights about the Constitution’s meaning and proper application along the way, but that’s why we establish courts and hold elections. This much to me is clear: We do not worship the Constitution; we dread tyranny.
For Lepore and her intellectual kin, however, it would seem they dread the Constitution and…
…well, you can figure out the rest.
*I can’t be the only one who, when accused of fetishizing the Constitution, pictures a very old piece of parchment decked out in a black leather merry widow and stiletto-heeled boots.
(Crossposted at Vodkapundit.)
For a leftist, nothing can be above their own opinion. They see themselves as gods. The accrued wisdom of thousands of years is nothing compared to their own personal wisdom. A track record unparalleled in history is nothing compared to the track record of their own lives. The wisdom of the electorate is nothing compared to their own wisdom.
God, the Constitution, the electorate, history, tradition…. insignificant.
The question isn’t whether they are right or not. The answer to that is obvious. The question is how much longer we allow them to subvert our lives, no matter cede them control over our lives.
When they were hiding in the weeds pretending to be what they are not, allowing them to plot their schemes was stupid, but in an increasingly busy world, understandable. Now that they are proudly in the open, sane adults have to ask ourselves how much longer we will allow the madness.
["...sane adults have to ask ourselves how much longer we will allow the madness."]
I have no doubt that the answer will come following the rising up of all the sane people of Europe, Russia, South America, the Middle East, Africa, China, etc., demanding for a Traditional American form of Constitutional government.
So far Americans have been enthralled with becoming more like many of those for decades now.
I always invite folks to read the Chinese Constitution to get a grasp of how irrelevant words are, say in our constitution when the people surrender to something far different. For example…the Chinese Constitution declares that they are NOT a Communist nation at all. Though they declare themselves to be Socialist they also declare their government and social [processes] to be more like the USA.
As I recorded in another thread, Americans have yet to honestly and definitively measure their surrender to a centralized nanny government. Most have NO idea how much they have willing [become dependent] upon government, be it State or federal or both, for their survival….much of which they will not likely forfeit willingly now! Every State and States communities have their hands out for government redistributed funds for assisted survival. Most every individual citizen, wealthy, middle class, poor or indigent, enjoys some form and level of government redistributed handouts….from agriculture to small business, mega corporations, manufacturing, services industries, research and development, the arts, banking and finance, unemployment, workers compensation, health care, food stamps, SSI, disabilities, the full range of retirement systems, education, disaster aid, home mortgage subsidy, flood insurance, Rural electric and telephone subsidy, etc.
How many are really going to line up in todays America to hand in their government redistributed assistance cards and willingly suffer such consequences? All the constitutional rhetoric has become essentially irrelevant in these times, to a small government with limited authority. IF a majority were willing to amend the constitution and suffer all the consequences then, there may be some relevancy to the current movements and rhetoric. Anything less, then get use to a more progressive transition to socialism than the nation has currently have surrendered to.
This is more or less what I have been saying to Tea Party types since long before there was an entity called such. The Government has become so much a part of what we are and what we need that much of what puist critics say is about as goofy as greens saying that we have to get rid of petro fuels. No, we NEED petro and we need government. We can whittle away around the edges, try to slow growth and/or impose some limits, but a majority of the people will not see it in their self interest to plow their own roads, teach their own children, police their own streets times a thousand, which is not to say that you can’t get some better cost-accounting of all of the above, with a pocket or two of privatization here and there.
Please link to TEA activists who propose to eliminate government. This is news to many I’m sure.
JustAl….It is precisely that the Tea Party has NO viable strategic and comprehensive plan for reducing the size and authority of the federal government back to some resemblance of constitutional intent….that makes their movement and their rhetoric essentially irrelevant.
I had so hoped that they (Tea Party) would be the movement who would finally take on the prospect of amending the Constitutions Article I, Section 8, Commerce Clause that would allow for an organized three decade transition fixing 99.999% of the nations problems and [reverse] the decades of transition to socialism.
They are obviously not the folks to get it done…and therefore, are largely irrelevant!
So, I’m flanked by one poster who contends the TEA movement is some sort of code for anarchy and another poster who contends the TEA movement does not move aggressively enough to limit government.
My contention is that it is a great place to be. By remaining vaguely organized, without clear leaders or overly specific objectives, the TEA movement has survived attacks from all quarters. The foundations are being laid, there will be time for details. And the movement remains an illusive target not fitting into the preconceived, pre-registered attack plans of it’s opponents.
If, say 10 years ago, you would have told people that in the near future ‘Democrats’ would accuse people of being racist\ right wing extremists for defending the constitution they would have laughed and denounced you for being delusional.
Shows how far we have come.
http://crooksandliars.com/david-neiwert/oath-keepers-potentially-most-lethal
No, you’re the only one.
The Constitution is a masterpiece if you cherish liberty. The men who crafted it had operated under a number of colonial charters and the Articles of Confederation. Like Shakespeare’s plays, the document was a result of years of workshopping government structure and broad experience. We have prospered with it like no other people on earth. And we took it for granted until the totalitarian left have gone too far with their agenda. Our renewed appreciation has happened just in time. The younger generations are barely informed about it and its sources under the liberal education monopoly. Another generation of socialist progress and America might have been lost. Tea Party on boys and girls.
Lepore tells us everything we needed to know: “And it is, too, the accreted set of meanings that have been made of these words, the amendments, the failed amendments …”
Really? The Constitution, the supreme law of the land, consists of … things it doesn’t include?
Let’s try that on for size. According to Lepore’s logic, her article consists of not just the words it contains but also the debate it prompts … including the posts on this site. Yep, I can see it clearly: she seems like someone who’d feel very comfortable if readers added content and interpretations at will and whim, then claimed it’s all part of her intended whole.
No, the Constitution isn’t perfect. Yes, it is a masterpiece.
Lepore notoriously left out any mention of The Federalist Papers. These were the writings that explained he reasoning behind every clause of The Constitution and were instrumental in its adoption (by narrow margins) by the States. For all of the pseudo-scholarly pretensions of the writer she obfuscated the seminal source for the meaning of the document. She is either mendacious or ill informed.
That isn’t necessarily an either/or proposition.
Quite right. I shant wax upon the deplorable level of both
informational and moral efficacy of our educational
system.
Roy…You are spot on!
Ignoring the Federalist Papers is what has allowed this nation to systematically become socialist with a huge centralized government and self proclaimed authorities….with the assistance of the courts.
Consider Article III, Section 3 Actually, that one isnt
that hard at all. Its saying that in a charge of treason, only the
person found guilty will pay for it – there will be no unto the
third generation kind of nonsense. Thats the corruption of
blood part – that ones descendants will pay as well.
Yeah, I looked it up to be certain I was right – it is clearly no more and no less than protecting the family of a traitor from harm. Now granted, I’m pretty smart and I do have a college education. I don’t have a legal education of any kind, though, or any serious knowledge of the Constitution other than a basic understanding. So why do I get it with one read, when this guy is apparently too dense to understand it? More importantly, why does he have a major media job while I don’t?
As long as we’re parsing phrasing, what about the very word “constitution”? It really means the fundament, the foundation that our nation is built on. Just as one cannot build a house on a shifting base of sand, one cannot build a nation on a set of laws that change according to the whims of the lawmakers. Both eventually fall down.
Well, I learned more from LePore than Green. Maybe someone can give some specific objections to the history she cites.
It is clear that the Second Amendment can be read more than one way, even if righties assure us now that it obviously can be read only ONE way. I note that it does not say anything about restricting the rights of felons or lunatics to bear arms. What’s up with that? Did some common sense “living” Twentieth Century interpretations get made, or did liberal-socialists decide to deprive good patriotic felons and lunatics of their natural, God-given right to bear arms?
I love Franklin’s statement as well as Rush’s complaint that God is never mentioned in the document. Does Newt Gingrich know that?
My course in Constitutional Law in College, taught by a brilliant,(or so we thought) relatively conservative professor led me to believe that interpreting the Constitution was a complicated business for our finest legal minds, or at least people who conspire with Volkaugh, whereas now, it seems to be simple enough so that our favorite “I am not a witch” gal can interpret it more correctly than the guy who won the election. What a country.
Where is Robert Byrd with his KKK embossed copy of the Sublime Document when we need him? And what is up with the papers of the Anti-Federalists? Are they part of the Talmud, too or more like treasonous apochrypha? Just asking the Constitutional experts around here.
2nd Amendment “a well regulated militia” Lunatics and felons cannot be part of a well-regulated militia.
One CAN be stripped of one’s liberties (life, liberty, property) via due process of law… after a fair trial. The Fifth Amendment clearly acknowledges this power by stating HOW it CANNOT be done.
So in your mind, what is the relationship between the right to bear arms and the “well-regulated militia?” In the past the Supreme Court has closely linked the two, but recently that supposedly God-given and absolute right has been affirmed for the individual, APART from the militia, hasn’t it? If it is for the individual, then individual felons and lunatics may still have that right.
At any rate, it is a complicated matter to resolve, and if there is anything which American History shows us is that the Constitution moves along with the culture. Is that “living?”
The limits proscribed by the Constitution MAY well be a necessary reminder to us to pull back from full-fledged Obama care, pension quagmires, a humungous defense budget etc., but if the simple-minded were permitted (and they will not be) to throw out anything which they do not see explicitly in the Constitution, government as we have come to know it would cease to be and the consequences enumerated by TTT would follow.
No matter what is or is not in the Federalist (or Anti-Federalist) Papers, ANY move in American politics, will be haggled over, compromised, with a bit of this thrown in, a bit of that thrown out. The Founders well knew of the political process, but here and elsewhere, the absolutist types will still be babbling about how simple and clear it all is.
The reason we don’t shoot the lawyers is so that we don’t shoot each other.
The Constitution is America. We can see what has happened as we have strayed so far that many liberals think it an obsolete and irritating document that just stands in the way of government power. You know, they are right about the last part.
The meaning is not obscure to anyone with a decent education. There is room for squabbling about bits and pieces around the edges but the basic meanings are clear. It is a living document. It has the ability to be amended. That is the only “living” part and indeed the only needed living part.
The government wouldn’t disappear if we hewed close to the Constitution, it would just empower the states to do their job. I do agree that might be terrible for those living in California, Michigan or Illinois.
If the Constitution goes by the way side America will cease to exist on all but name in a generation as we become a nation of personages and not a nation of laws.
So is it clear to you what the relationship, if any is, between the well-regulated militia and the right for the individual to bear arms? Is deriving felons and lunatics that right within the penumbra?
Er, depriving…
Marc…..Both the Second and Fifth Amendments are ripe examples of [abstract] re-interpretations of the Constitution away from their original intent.
Only one standing Supreme Court case (United States v. Miller), and its citations, re: Second Amendment, minutely preserves any of the original intent, largely leaving open the door to more abstract adversarial interpretations.
The Fifth Amendment is equally as messy! For example, the Constitution does NOT prescribe nor intend that any criminal conviction should suffer a life’s sentence of loss of ["Liberty and property"] as is often the regulated case by most States….and upheld by the Supreme Court….ignoring the full intent of the double jeopardy clause.
As simple as the Constitution and its supported intent may be, some special interest factions and all levels of government in America, have succeeded in making a mess of it.
The construction of law as is the case with the Constitution is very, very simple and requires NO experts. What debases either is to allow [abstract] interpretations of either the elements of a law or document and the [separate] intent. The constitutions elements are supported rather definitively through the foundational intent found in the Federalist Papers. All constructed law has separate documents declaring its intent of the law and the elements of the law.
The looney left go through a lot of hype when it comes to the right doing of things. They will marginalize, excuse or even justify the doing of wrong. They will ignore plain, common sense and walk over to the looney-bin and take their stand there?
What is so hard about the Consitiution? Did the Lord not tell us that right doing is not so hard to understand? It is not up in heaven, so that we may say; who will go up for us? It is not across the oceans, that we may say; who will go over for us?
All people already have a consitution written into their heart. They do know, but choose to do differently. Therefore, there is no excuse.
These are times and days of wonder. What is Right and Just will not long suffer fools.
Did anyone notice the reference to sadomasochism at the end of the blog? It is poorly understood unless studied in the psyches of practicing sadomasochists. The submissiveness built into what now passes as “liberalism” was dissected after I did my own research in the archive of a very sick puppy. The results are here: http://clarespark.com/2009/07/13/eros-and-the-middle-manager-s-m-with-implications-for-multiculturalism/. S-M is now pervasive in our political culture, and is much more than harmless theatrics.
Felons and lunatics are deprived of many other rights as well while they remain incarcerated by due process. Corruption of blood by blood is the only cause that prevents their wholesale lock down.
Willing lawyers are merely parasitic agents for facilitating the whims of elite kin that risk being stigmatized by msm association with affirmed lunatics. Remember WJC’s or Peanut Carter’s little brother or FDR’s association with Jeannie Dixon? Incarceration of felons is always anchored to the elite damage risk from a tsunami created by the corrupt media shielded by first amendment protection.
Although eradication of the risk may be preferable, politically motivated court justice is acceptable when corruption of blood rides the wave crest of tantamount election.
Your Making it too hard. Democrates act like spoiled teenage children.They Want everything given to them . Change the Rules so they Win always. If they dont get their way Dems will call you names. Racist astroturf, stupid. etc. They will lash out and USE anything to try to distract you from stopping their PLAN.. They Mock the People and American way ( which supports them). Expose them and their Bad behaviors,then Ignore them. They Hate that.