|
|
|
October 23, 2009
"the Constitution explicitly forbids it"
From an Investors Business Daily editorial: In ways large and small, it's easy to see we're building a nanny state that will make Europe's seem modest by comparison. After all, this doesn't even include health care "reform" or cap-and-trade. Soon, the federal government will control every aspect of our lives - though the Constitution explicitly forbids it.Yes, the Constitution explicitly forbids it. And we have a president and a Congress who all took an oath to "preserve, protect, and defend" that Constitution. I'd say this is the biggest constitutional crisis since Watergate, except that isn't really accurate, because after all, Watergate consisted of a burglary and a coverup. Nixon resigned and the country survived with the Constitution largely intact. The problem with this constitutional crisis is on a much grander scale. We have a government now which violates the Constitution with impunity, and act as if that's just the way things are supposed to be. No wonder; if you talk about things like federalism and the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, people roll their eyes as if you must be a kook. (I am serious; the argument is largely wasted, especially on serious, ambitious policy types who think you have to live in the real world.) However, a History Channel* documentary on the drug war which was on the other night offered a stunning if brief reminder that there was a time when the Constitution meant something. About 50 seconds into the video, former San Jose police chief Joseph McNamara (now a fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford) explains how the Harrison Narcotics Act made the first major end run around the Constitution: "For the first 140 years our country included the right to ingest whatever chemicals you wished. Only in 1914 did that change. And the change is probably the most radical public policy change in the history of the United States." What's fascinating is the way they went about it. Congress knew that the federal government simply lacked the power under the Constitution to invade people's medicine cabinets, so they got their foot in the door with a "tax" measure, and then started arresting people for tax violations. A few years later, they faced the same constitutional problem banning alcohol, except the problem was much vaster in that there were so many people involved. So this time they went about it the right way -- by amending the Constitution. I call the 18th Amendment the "Telltale Amendment," because its existence proves the existence of a once-flourishing Constitution, which had to be respected. They don't need no steenking amendments today! They can do anything they want. Especially what the Constitution explicitly forbids. * It's a sad commentary on our plight that the only place ordinary people can get to hear about these things would be in brief mentions on the History Channel. posted by Eric on 10.23.09 at 05:00 PM
Comments
Yes, the Constitution explicitly forbids it Could you elaborate on that or provide a link? M. Simon · October 24, 2009 12:03 PM BTW Tim Leary got the tax declared illegal by the Supreme Court. So they folded the drug laws into a law on medicine: the Controlled Substance Act. And then declared that that the drugs they wanted to declare illegal had no medical use. M. Simon · October 24, 2009 12:08 PM President: Congress: Judges: The second oath that federal judges must take is this; it is the same oath that members of Congress take: I, AB, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God. New York State: I solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support the Constitution of the United States, and the Constitution of the State of New York, (and the Charter of the City of New York, e.g.), and that I will faithfully discharge the duties of the office of (mayor of the City of New York, e.g.) to the best of my ability. M. Simon · October 24, 2009 12:16 PM The quote is from IBD: "the Constitution explicitly forbids it" As to the Constitution and Bill of Rights, yes, add them all again. Quote it all in one big Super-Amendment, followed by "AND THIS TIME WE MEAN IT!" But would that work? What if they declared the Constitution unconstitutional? Eric Scheie · October 24, 2009 06:15 PM They've redefined it. It's a living document. Eh, I can see the argument (I'm surprised I haven't seen it), it falls under "providing for.. the general welfare". You can fit whatever you decide is "for the general welfare" and voila, it's Constitutional. Veeshir · October 25, 2009 03:05 PM Here's Constitution author James Madison on the general welfare clause: http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/James_Madison ***QUOTE*** With respect to the words "general welfare," I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators. ***QUOTE*** But I wouldn't expect it to convince most liberals..... Eric Scheie · October 25, 2009 03:37 PM More Madison on "general welfare": http://www.aipnews.com/talk/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=7240&posts=4 ***QUOTE*** "Having not yet succeeded in hitting on an opportunity, I send you a part of it in a newspaper, which broaches a new Constitutional doctrine of vast consequence, and demanding the serious attention of the public. I consider it myself as subverting the fundamental and characteristic principle of the Government; as contrary to the true and fair, as well as the received construction, and as bidding defiance to the sense in which the Constitution is known to have been proposed, advocated, and adopted. If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one, subject to particular exceptions. It is to be remarked that the phrase out of which this doctrine is elaborated is copied from the old Articles of Confederation, where it was always understood as nothing more than a general caption to the specified powers." ***END QUOTE*** Eric Scheie · October 25, 2009 03:44 PM Sure, that's what it meant back then, but it's a living document, general welfare means so much more these days. Veeshir · October 28, 2009 07:53 PM Post a comment
You may use basic HTML for formatting.
|
|
October 2009
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR
Search the Site
E-mail
Classics To Go
Archives
October 2009
September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 May 2002 AB 1634 MBAPBSAAGOP Skepticism See more archives here Old (Blogspot) archives
Recent Entries
• Who wants to look like a bigot?
• A Seat At The Table • Making a hero disappear • Health Care Mantra • An opinion at gunpoint is no longer an opinion • And what if we're all wrong? • A Libertine Speaks • "outside the Democratic norms of our society" • Herding Junkies • Government Finance Reform
Links
Site Credits
|
|
Perhaps we need a Constitutional Amendment which declares that the three branches of government must adhere to the Constitution? We could call it... the Constitution.
We could get Douglas Hofstadter to write the Amendment, which could also be self-referential...