The Constitutional Myths of the right

Discussion in 'US Constitution' started by IM2, Jan 30, 2019.

  1. ThisIsMe
    Offline

    ThisIsMe Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2017
    Messages:
    1,390
    Thanks Received:
    173
    Trophy Points:
    140
    Ratings:
    +849
    So if government has ultimate authority, then why have a constitution? Why not just write a single line that says "government has complete authority, and all others must get approval before doing anything".

    If the constitution is not a limiting document, then what we are left with is essentially a dictatorship, not by a single person, but by a body of people. Our government is of, by, and for the people, and the powers are given to government by consent of the governed.

    My interpretation of that is, we give government certain powers to be able to work on our behalf, but ultimately, it is the peoples country. Had the intent have been that we were to give up all of our power to the government for it to be able to rule over us, I would think less people would have been likely to go along with that.
     
    • Winner Winner x 2
    • Informative Informative x 1
  2. emilynghiem
    Offline

    emilynghiem Constitutionalist / Universalist Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2010
    Messages:
    21,854
    Thanks Received:
    3,023
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Location:
    National Freedmen's Town District
    Ratings:
    +8,430
    Dear ThisIsMe
    You have pretty much summed up how people view government who DON'T have faith that Constitutional laws and limits have any compelling authority of enforcement.

    The liberal friends I have discussed this with DO BELIEVE that with people "anything goes". Anyone can pass anything through govt, so it is a "dog eat dog" competition to push YOUR beliefs through govt if you want those rights respected.

    They aren't just inherently given for people to invoke by claiming them.

    Justice has to be FOUGHT for. It's whatever laws, rules or terms you can pass that are going to get recognized.

    So they use Government to serve as the central authority by which the "collective will of the people" is established by agreed process. Then turn around and use "whatever means necessary" (courts, media, parties, and any level of govt or public institution or private) to FORCE compliance.

    You described the raw political process from the viewpoint of people who don't see a given structure in natural laws already inherent and in place for managing the democratic process. To these with no such faith in a unifying natural law governing all humanity, it's whatever you can get by majority rule.

    They don't believe anyone is really bound by the laws in the Constitution, so they don't enforce that, but only listen to court rulings or orders that spell out what interpretations to follow.

    It is ABSOLUTELY like a theocracy (or kritocracy) where judges are authorized with "divine right to rule" and make laws from the bench. If people do not believe natural laws are pre-existent, and our democratic process and laws merely reflect that not DICTATE it, then instead of using God or churches for higher authority, they use Govt as a secular substitute for "universal authority."

    Thus I have found that Conservatives make "God their Government."
    And Liberals make "Government their God."
     
  3. Porter Rockwell
    Offline

    Porter Rockwell VIP Member

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2018
    Messages:
    3,411
    Thanks Received:
    149
    Trophy Points:
    75
    Ratings:
    +1,156
    IF what you way is true about conservatives, they have a shitty way of showing it.

    They support a fat, rich, lying, egotistical, megalomaniac whose followers think he has a direct line to God almighty.

    The liberals, by and large, reject God - except in the form of a democratic God. Hell, neither sides acknowledges the Republic. Neither side invokes principles like unalienable Rights or Liberty. Both sides are willing to violate the separation of powers and give whatever branch of government will deliver the best result to them with no regard for the long term consequences.
     
    • Funny Funny x 1
  4. Tinhatter
    Offline

    Tinhatter Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2014
    Messages:
    63
    Thanks Received:
    9
    Trophy Points:
    21
    Ratings:
    +46
    Silly Libtards and their addiction to commie/socialist tactics are always amusing. Want to know what the Constitution says? Read the damn Constitution! It ain't written in no Marxist/Leninist commie intelligentsia jargon, in need of egghead interpreters. Want to know what it means? Try reading books like ' View of the Constitution of the United States' (ISBN# 9780865972018). Want to know what the Founding Fathers were thinking when they wrote it? Try reading the numerous written works authored by the Founding Fathers!
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  5. miketx
    Online

    miketx Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2015
    Messages:
    69,112
    Thanks Received:
    7,868
    Trophy Points:
    1,870
    Location:
    near Throckmorton TX
    Ratings:
    +78,805
    Liar.
     
  6. bigrebnc1775
    Offline

    bigrebnc1775 Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2010
    Messages:
    69,784
    Thanks Received:
    4,434
    Trophy Points:
    1,825
    Location:
    Kannapolis, N.C.
    Ratings:
    +8,323
    crack is wack lay off of it.
     
    • Funny and Agree!! Funny and Agree!! x 2
  7. regent
    Offline

    regent Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2012
    Messages:
    10,285
    Thanks Received:
    1,102
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +2,684
    State Constitution with most amendments
     
  8. HereWeGoAgain
    Offline

    HereWeGoAgain Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2010
    Messages:
    57,613
    Thanks Received:
    9,103
    Trophy Points:
    2,060
    Location:
    Fuck Y'all I'm From Texas!
    Ratings:
    +43,546
    The only thing dumber than I am 2 is a turnip.
     
    • Funny and Agree!! Funny and Agree!! x 2
  9. ThunderKiss1965
    Offline

    ThunderKiss1965 Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2015
    Messages:
    8,044
    Thanks Received:
    1,424
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Location:
    GNO
    Ratings:
    +7,412
    A huge pile of stinking bullshit that lets everyone interpret the Constitution anyway they see fit.
     
    • Funny and Agree!! Funny and Agree!! x 1
  10. IM2
    Offline

    IM2 Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2015
    Messages:
    30,327
    Thanks Received:
    3,241
    Trophy Points:
    1,170
    Ratings:
    +22,631
    Constitutional Myth #2: The 'Purpose' of the Constitution Is to Limit Congress

    "The Constitution was written explicitly for one purpose -- to restrain the federal government," Rep. Ron Paul said in 2008.

    Bless his heart. (For those of you who didn't grow up in the South, that expression in context means, "He means well, but sometimes I just want to slap him.") Dr. Paul is a likeable and honest person, but he knows as much about the Constitution as I do about obstetrics--the difference being that I don't try to instruct the nation on how to deliver babies.

    Dr. Paul is far from alone in this bizarre delusion. If there's anything the far right regards as dogma, it's that the "intent" of the Constitution was to restrain, inhibit, intimidate, infantilize, disempower, disembowel, and generally smack Congress and federal bureaucrats around. "Does anyone seriously believe that when the Founders gathered in Philadelphia 220 years ago they were aspiring to control the buying decisions of individual consumers from Washington?" Sen. Tom Coburn asks. "They were arguing for the opposite and implored future Courts to slap down any law from Congress that expanded the Commerce Clause." Sen. Jim DeMint claims that "although the Constitution does give some defined powers to the federal government, it is overwhelmingly a document of limits, and those limits must be respected."

    If this is true, it's the kind of truth that comes to us only from divine revelation--because it sure doesn't appear in the text of the Constitution or the history of its framing. Historically, in fact, it's ludicrously anachronistic, like claiming that the telescope was invented in 1608 so that people could watch Apollo 13 land on the moon. There was no federal government to speak of in 1787. "Congress" was a feckless, ludicrous farce. The concern that brought delegates to Philadelphia was that, under the Articles of Confederation, Congress was too weak. Many of the Framers were close to panic because the Confederation Congress was unable to levy taxes, pay the nation's debts, live up to its treaty obligations, regulate commerce, or restrain the greedy, predatory state governments. The Union seemed on the verge of splitting into tiny republics, which would quickly be recolonized by Britain, France, or Spain.

    As early as 1780, Alexander Hamilton (one of the authors of The Federalist) wrote to James Duane that "[t]he fundamental defect [in the Articles of Confederation] is a want of power in Congress. It is hardly worth while to show in what this consists, as it seems to be universally acknowledged, or to point out how it has happened, as the only question is how to remedy it."

    In April 1787, James Madison, second author of The Federalist, wrote to George Washington his aim for a new Constitution: "The national government should be armed with positive and compleat authority in all cases which require uniformity." (Madison also wanted a rule that no state law could take effect until Congress explicitly approved it.)

    Shortly before, Washington had written to John Jay, "I do not conceive we can exist long as a nation, without having lodged somewhere a power which will pervade the whole Union in as energetic a manner, as the authority of the different state governments extends over the several States." Jay, third author of The Federalist, made clear to Washington his own view: "What Powers should be granted to the Government so constituted is a Question which deserves much Thought--I think the more the better--the States retaining only so much as may be necessary for domestic Purposes; and all their principal Officers civil and military being commissioned and removeable by the national Governmt." (Note the last part: State executives would be appointed by the federal government.)

    As for the Constitution's text, if it was "intended" to limit the federal government, it sure doesn't say so. Article I § 8, a Homeric catalog of Congressional power, is the longest and most detailed in the Constitution. It includes the "Necessary and Proper" Clause, which delegates to Congress the power "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."

    The Framers' main plan for preventing overreach by the federal government lay not in coded restrictions on Congress's powers but in the Constitution's political structure. This is what George Washington meant when he expressed hope that "a liberal, and energetic Constitution, well guarded & closely watched, to prevent incroachments, might restore us to that degree of respectability & consequence, to which we had a fair claim, & the brightest prospect of attaining."

    The idea was that a bicameral legislature, an independent executive with the power of veto, and a separation between legislative and judicial power would channel Congress's broad powers into constructive channels. State governments would advocate effectively for their own interests both in Congress and with the people. That's a very different vision than the current right-wing claim that the Constitution contains between-the-lines "thou shalt nots" placing various areas off limits to regulation.

    The far-right argument has the seductive power of any half-truth. Of course there are limits on Congress's power--they are located in Article I § 9: Congress, for example, can't pass a "bill of attainder," tax exports, or grant titles of nobility. In addition, the Bill of Rights explicitly prevents Congress from limiting freedom of speech, "the right to bear arms," trial by jury and so forth. But conservatives mean something different: What they mean is that if something isn't written down in the Constitution in so many words, the "intent" of the Framers was to keep Congress from doing it. If Congress wasn't doing it before 1787, it can't do it now.

    The worst insult they can level at a governmental measure is that it is "unprecedented." Before the Civil War, conservatives argued that Congress couldn't build roads and canals; it was unprecedented. After the Civil War, Congress "couldn't" regulate child labor; it was unprecedented. When the Depression hit, Congress "couldn't" pass Social Security; it was unprecedented. When the Civil Rights movement arose, Congress "couldn't" outlaw discrimination in public accommodations; it was unprecedented. Medicare was unprecedented; so was the National Environmental Policy Act; so was the School Lunch program. Today, Congress "can't" enact a health-care system. We've never had one, so we can't have one.

    In fact, the Constitution itself did the unprecedented. It created a national, republican government with adequate power to maintain and govern a strong Union during the unforeseeable events ahead. "Nothing can therefore be more fallacious, than to infer the extent of any power, proper to be lodged in the National Government, from an estimate of its immediate necessities," Hamilton wrote in Federalist 34. "There ought to be a capacity to provide for future contingencies, as they may happen; and, as these are illimitable in their nature, it is impossible safely to limit that capacity." From the record and the text, that was the "purpose" of the Constitution--to create a government with adequate power, even under new circumstances, to make the United States what George Washington, in his final address as Commander of the Continental Army, called "a respectable nation."

    Articles of Confederation.

    The current war on federal power, like the other attacks on its power throughout history, is really motivated by an entirely realistic fear that those idiots, the people, will enact progressive legislation. Only by importing prohibitions on Congress into the Constitution can that terrible outcome be prevented.

    But the more tightly we bind Congress with imaginary chains, the less we, the people, can create a "respectable nation."

    Constitutional Myth #2: The 'Purpose' of the Constitution Is to Limit Congress
     

Share This Page