Reality vs. Royalism
“Where the mind is without fear and the head is held high,
Where knowledge is free;
Where tireless striving stretches the arms toward perfection;
Where the clear stream of reason has not lost its way
Into the dreary desert sand of dead habits;
My Father,
Let my country awake!” (Rabindranath Tagore, 1913)
The beauty of the Constitution and the wisdom of its authors become apparent in the simplicity and straightforwardness of their language. Unlike Biblical texts, loaded with prophecies, ambiguities, and willy-nilly interpretations of intangible mysteries open only to the self-ordained holy seers, the Founding Fathers created a statement or purpose and practice easily read and understood by everyone. They were educated and highly literate men, leagues above those they governed in many respects, but they, unlike our present government, felt no need to bury their ideals in lengthy, complicated, and often misleading terms. There was no ulterior motive involved.
Let us never, however, confuse the two. We call the Constitution ‘sacred’, but it is not sacred like some would call the Bible ‘sacred.’ The Constitution is not an inviolable, infallible work of divinely inspired prophets, rather the effort of plain, thinking men imbued with courage and a reality based foresight, looking through the eyes of history to create a nation free from the treacheries of those Empires which preceded them; and most, if not all, of those empires based their power on the Bible and the infallible rights of monarchy. The American founders, taking the lead of the Enlightenment philosophers, shook off this yoke of faith based ‘royalism’ and built an ideal based upon rational laws and not upon the capricious rule of men – dead, divine, anointed, or otherwise.
“The Constitution of the United States is a law for rulers and people, equally in war and in peace, and covers with its shield all classes of men, at all times, and under all circumstances. No doctrine involving more pernicious consequences was ever inverted by the wit of man than that any of its provisions can be suspended during any of the great exigencies of government.” (David Davis, 1815-1886)
posted by Shlomo Leib Aronovitz @ 9:22 AM
6 Comments
6 Comments:
Beautifully put, Shlomo.
George Orwell had some interesting things to say about the relationship between presenting ideas in a clear, straightforward manner and political freedom.
In an essay titled "Politics and the English Language," he writes "If you simplify your English, you are freed from the worst follies of orthodoxy."
Orwell was well aware how language could be used to justify despotic policies and mask the truth, and he knew that the antidote to that, in part, was to use language in a clear, honest manner.
SL: I'm so glad you brought up this point, which I wholeheartedly agree with, but I will even take a step further. You see, It's not just the royalists who are stepping outside the bounds of the constitution, but also the socialists. They are the ones who shame the constitution by forcing us (at gunpoint, ultimately) to pay for the bad decisions of others. To pay child support of children we have not fathered, to pay for medical care and prescription drugs for the elderly (the wealthiest segment of the population), to pay a type of pension benefit for all people over 65, to dictate hiring practices to employers, to force employers to provide costly benefits to employees without thought given to the circumstances of the employers, and to subsidize some buisinesses and not others. I could go on and on, but I think you get the idea. So I say to you, let's absolutely stick to the original letter and spirit of the constitution, and any changes in the governance of this country should be made only as a result of an ammendment to our wonderful constitution.
I see that I am no the only one who admires the Roman Stoics.
Meditations 8:30
"Speak both in the Senate and to every man, whoever he may be, appropriately, not with any affectation; use plain language."
You make some very good points. I have to agree that there have been some pretty funky notions delivered to the floor of Congress from both sides of the aisle. However, the Founders never intended the Constitution be the absolute and only law of the land, and they themselves never prevented local and state governments from enacting laws of questionable Constitutional value. It was not until 1868, and the adoption of the 14 Amendment, that states became required to abide by Constitutional strictures. (This was a result of Reconstruction in the South.)
Ultimately, what is Constitutional? Would the restriction of gun ownership to felons, for example, be forbidden simply because the 2nd Amendment didn’t mention it? Perhaps the Founders also wanted criminals to have firearms? If so, then I think every rapist, murderer, and felon should have ‘the right to bear arms’ like anyone else! They would agree, too.
By your logic, and it is consistent, it would have also been unconstitutional, without an outright amendment, to impede on the rights of the Southern states to hold slaves. The even greater constitutional challenge of Lincoln’s administration was the forced military draft, and the income tax levied to finance the war. Neither was sufficiently challenged in wartime, and one could not expect much of a challenge under those circumstances.
(I know that making absurd arguments isn’t the best way to approach the issue, but it does illustrate how twisted the wrong sort of reading can become.
Some statements support your claim clearly as to taxation and how the government is to use it. For example:
"I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents." (James Madison criticizing an attempt to grant public monies for charitable means, 1794)
“I cannot find any authority in the Constitution for making the Federal Government the great almoner of public charity throughout the United States. To do so would, in my judgment, be contrary to the letter and spirit of the Constitution and subversive of the whole theory upon which the Union of these States is founded." (President Franklin Pierce, 1854)
On the other hand, although both Hamilton and Madison were Federalists who believed in a strong federal government, they disagreed over the interpretation of the constitution's permission for the government to levy taxes and spend money to "provide for the general welfare." Hamilton thought this meant that government could levy new taxes and undertake new spending if doing so improved the general welfare of the many. Madison thought the federal government could only expend money for things mentioned in the Constitution.
The Madisonian view, also shared by Thomas Jefferson, came to be known as the strict construction doctrine while the Hamiltonian view is called the doctrine of implied powers. Courts shifted in either way over the years with the Hamiltonian view taking precedent. There is no doubt that Madisonites would call measures enacted under the Hamiltonians as unconstitutional.
I know this doesn’t answer things directly, but what alternative would you have to labor laws, minimum wage, and national pension programs? Those programs grew out of the necessity to ‘promote the general welfare’ and from a Judeo-Christian ethic, though not a basis for our Constitution, demanded that we, as a people, do not turn our collective backs on the elderly, minorities, children, and the poverty stricken. What would you have had the government of 1933 do in the face of horrible starvation, drought, poverty, and death in America? This question faced the Cardozo court in 1937 and Cardozo interpreted ‘general welfare’ to mean the cessation of unemployment, poverty, and starvation en masse.
(FDR was definitely two sided in this matter. When Governor of NY, he opposed social programs based upon a Madisonian doctrine, and later as President, when faced with crisis of staggering national import, he did ‘flip-flop’ and assume the Hamiltonian view. I believe the circumstance warranted the shift.)
So then the obvious question arises as to how I can condemn GW Bush for doing exactly, or at least under the same usage of ‘implied powers’. First of all, the issue of executive power has not been settled, and if Katz v. US is any indication, then for our purposes, it has been.
In the case of social programs, where the mechanism and authority to tax was already in place, the argument is to the scope of what government spending should be. GW Bush is seeking new powers that would expand his role into violation of the 4th Amendment at will, something no Supreme Court justice has ever approved of. Fact is, we have already crossed the line over that 4th Amendment long ago in terms of what powers are implied. We maintain the checks and balances of powers to ensure the rights of citizens are protected. GW hasn’t offered us anything new in terms of behavior, just the way he goes about doing it is without the constitutionally required oversight. That is the problem.
Some would like us to go back to the Taft decision (Olmstead) which said that eavesdropping on telephone calls, then a new technology, does not constitute ‘seizure’ because nothing tangible is being seized and there is no physical trespass on property. I think we all agree that isn’t how we want to interpret the 4th Amendment. That would mean that any conversation can be monitored without warrants, and any and all said communication can be used in prosecution.
I also disagree with the way GW is using ‘implied powers’, as if somehow the executive branch is imbued with some special power over the other branches at a whim. Ironically enough, Jefferson, a strict constructionalist, was the first to test the elasticity of the implied powers for the Lousiana Purchase and the establishment of a National bank.
Section 8 paragraph 18 of the United States Constitution:
“To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.”
Kol Tuv
SL: I'm honored that I have merited such a long and detailed answer to my comment. I generally try to stay away from GOP vs Dem issues in the blog world, but I couldn't resist this one. You certainly have given much thought to this, and much for me to think about, but I have a feeling that I still have some conservative-type quips left in me.
JF,
Your question was a very good one and it deserved the time and effort of answering fully.
I am in agreement with you that the expansion of government power over the rights of individuals needs to be checked. The Alito nomination is another opportunity for the Bush administration to put an exective-branch-friendly judge on the court.
Fact is, FDR packed his courts, too.
Each man is playing the game rough to get things done his way. I don't like GW's way. The gist of my post was the blind allegiance to GW and his cadre, who are only interested in redistributing wealth from the public sector into the hands of private corporations.
I think that FDR had a nobler set of causes to pursue. FDR never had to lie about the Depression, the Dust Bowl, or the evident catastrophe our nation suffered.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home