Guest post by Camillus
Camillus, a former Republican Party officer in his home state in the Northeastern United States who was involved in campaigns at both the local, state, and federal levels during the 2010 elections.
Disclaimer: All guest posts are the opinion of the poster and do not necessarily represent the views of moonhowlings.net administration. M-H
“Restore the Constitution!” It’s a cry, in various iterations, that one commonly hears from the Tea Party. There have been “Restore the Constitution” rallies calling for “restoring the rule of law,” there are “Restore the Constitution” petitions circulating online, and there are “Restore the Constitution” blog sites. Politically, the Tea Party movement portrays itself as the defenders of the Constitution keeping faith with the original intent of the Founding Fathers.
This is ironic. A deeper examination of positions held by the Tea Party, particularly regarding the scope of the 10th Amendment, the repeal or modification of the 14th, 16th, and 17th Amendments, and the support for various nullification proposals, reflects a hostility to aspects of the Constitution as well as opposition to well-established principles in our Constitutional jurisprudence. In the end, the vision of our Constitution expressed by the Tea Party movement is often fundamentally at odds with that of many of our leading Founders, including Washington, Adams, Hamilton, Jay, Marshall, and Madison (prior to his 1791 break with Hamilton).
A telling omission: The Tea Party and the 10th Amendment
The 10th Amendment features prominently in the Constitutionalism of the Tea Party. It provides that: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” To the Tea Party, the 10th Amendment is a forgotten (or ignored) restriction limiting the powers of the federal government to those explicitly enumerated in the Constitution. What is actually ignored is the history of the 10th Amendment. During the debates in Congress over what ultimately became the Bill of Rights, James Madison successfully defeated a motion to add the word “expressly”- as in “the powers not expressly delegated”- to the 10th Amendment, because, in his words, “it [is] impossible to confine a Government to the exercise of express powers; there must necessarily be admitted powers by implication.” Ignoring Madison’s logic, the Tea Party would write the word “expressly” back into the 10th Amendment though its narrow interpretation.
The Tea Party’s vision of the 10th Amendment also ignores the jurisprudential legacy of one of our earliest, and most consequential, Chief Justices- John Marshall. According to public television reporter Chris Satullo, “John Marshall, as much as any man save for the great James Madison, determined what our founding charter really meant, and did so in ways that enabled the American experiment to thrive.” In this regard, note that “thriving” is inextricably intertwined with a vigorous and capable federal government.
Fundamentally, Marshall:
“[I]interpreted the Constitution in a way opposite to the Tea Partiers and libertarians who now cite the 10th Amendment as cause to roll back the clock to 1850.
Marshall led the Supreme Court over 34 years, deciding the key cases that established the court as an equal branch and shaped the role of the federal government.
One of those cases is McCulloch v. Maryland. Apparently the Tea Partiers now carrying on about the 10th Amendment never heard of McCulloch or think it wrongly decided…
Tea Partiers today insist, following their hero Jefferson (no fan of the Constitution), that this clause limits Congress and the President only to those powers specifically named. They would have our leaders hamstrung in the face of any event not anticipated in 1787. They would declare illegal most of modern government, from the Tennessee Valley Authority to Social Security to the EPA.
But Marshall decided McCulloch, the great test of this question, in precisely the opposite way, establishing that the federal government has implicit powers to “ensure the general welfare”…
In the end, as one legal scholar has concluded, the Tea Party’s narrow reading of the 10th Amendment “is without support in [its] legislative history or [in] Supreme Court” precedent.
“Constitutional graffiti”
At the same time, some Congressional Republicans, including Tea Party darling Michele Bachmann, have been busy proposing a veritable blizzard of Constitutional edits and fixes. These include: repeal of the 17th Amendment (ending the direct election of Senators), amending the 14th Amendment (to end birthright citizenship), a prohibition on government ownership of private corporate stock, a “Parental Rights Amendment,” various proposed term-limits amendments, an amendment prohibiting flag burning, various balanced-budget amendments, a national prohibition on gay marriage, an amendment requiring a supermajority vote for any tax increases, and an amendment restricting the President’s authority to negotiate treaties. Reaching back to the antebellum “nullification” debates, Rep. Eric Cantor (R-VA), has even called for a “Repeal Amendment” which would provide for the nullification of federal laws by a two-thirds majority of the states, and there have been other calls for “nullification” as well.
Other Tea Party candidates weighed in offering their own Constitutional tweaks during the election campaign. For example, Joe Miller in Alaska announced that unemployment benefits were unconstitutional (despite the fact that he formerly received them), while Rand Paul said the same thing about the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Meanwhile, both Glen Beck (“the most highly regarded individual among Tea Party supporters,” according to one recent poll by Democracy Corps- he is viewed as an “educator”) and Sharron Angle have called for the repeal of the 16th Amendment (which established the federal income tax).
The movements to repeal or amend the 14th, 16th, and 17th Amendments, and the ghoulish return of “nullification” from its Civil War-era grave, warrant further analysis, as they illuminate the populist/libertarian assault on the Constitution, and federal authority, presently underway.
The Tea Party has become the political home of modern nativism. This finds expression in calls for the modification of the 14th Amendment to eliminate birthright citizenship. The 14th Amendment is a legacy of the Civil War and Reconstruction. It plainly states that anyone born in the United States is a citizen, and entitled to the equal protection of the law: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” The Tea Party would strike from the Constitution one of the most seminal statements elucidating the concept of human freedom ever written in the history of the world. The movement to amend the 14th Amendment is an ominous harbinger of other dangers ahead.
Calls for the repeal of the 16th Amendment are particularly reckless and irresponsible. The 16th Amendment, ratified in 1913, gives Congress the “power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived . . . .” The power to tax, however, was not a 20th Century addition to the Constitution- Article I, Section 8 vests Congress with the “[p]ower to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States . . .” Given this clear language, one might ask, why was the 16th Amendment needed? The answer is simple- it was necessary in order to reverse a Supreme Court decision, Pollock v. Farmers’ Loan & Trust Co., holding that the federal income tax was unconstitutional. The Pollock case is significant in that the Court broke with its own prior precedent affirming the constitutionality of the federal income tax, such as Springer v. United States (an 1889 case upholding the Constitutionality of a federal income tax), and ignored the clear language of Article I, Section 8.
While the level of the federal income tax, and its structure, is open to debate, there can be no dispute that it was an essential element in the creation of a stronger America. And that was an essential predicate to America’s world-saving role in the 20th Century- both from the spectre of Nazism, and from Communist tyranny. Those who would gut our national power, like Glen Beck and Sharron Angle, either imagine that similar dangers will never arise in the future, or worse, simply do not care. If the Tea Party succeeds in stripping Congress of its power to tax income, how will the federal government fulfill its Constitutional mandate to “provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States . . . .”?
The 17th Amendment provides for the direct election of United States Senators. Under the original Constitution, they were appointed directly by state legislatures. Like the 16th Amendment, it was also ratified in 1913. Astonishingly, its repeal has become a favorite cause of Tea Party candidates across America. For example, speaking in July, Rep. Paul Broun (R-GA) informed a Tea Party crowd that the 16th (the federal income tax) and 17th Amendments began the “process of socializing America,” and that both should be repealed. Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah), Rep. Jeff Landry (R-LA), and Rep. Raul Labrador (R-ID), also expressed support for repealing the 17th Amendment during the election campaign (in an ironic twist illuminating the subject of this article, Sen. Lee’s web page features the slogan “Join us in restoring Constitutional government to Washington!”).
The direct election of Senators by the people might sound innocuous, but in the view of the Tea Party, it’s ratification “dealt a blow to the Framers’ vision of the Constitution from which we have yet to recover.” In the view of the Tea Party, repealing it would enhance “states’ rights.” This puts the Tea Party in the awkward position of arguing that democracy isn’t a good thing. It also illuminates the real motivation in play- weakening the federal government, weakening the Union, and empowering State governments- which is separate and distinct from empowering citizens. To illustrate this point, consider: is it better to have United States Senators representing your state legislature, or representing you?
The sweet smell of Magnolias is discernable in much of the Tea Party’s Constitutionalism. This is particularly true in the calls for state nullification, largely centered on objections to “Obamacare.” Nullification, of course, was a doctrine conjured up and utilized by leaders in the South in the antebellum period. It has essentially laid dormant in its grave since the end of the Civil War (except for a brief dusting off during the Civil Rights era) but has now arisen, zombie-like, to haunt the political landscape again.
An entire essay could be written on the pernicious and destructive nature of nullification. For present purposes, it is enough to say that (to paraphrase Lincoln), it is in many ways the essence of anarchy. It utterly destroys federal authority, and is more appropriate for a confederation of independent states than a union (smell the Magnolias again?). If it were ever adopted, it would mean that there would be no uniform national law- different federal laws would be enforced in different states. Thus, it is a step towards Balkanization- towards eventual disunion.
It is also fundamentally antithetical to the Constitution of the Founders- indeed, it is a direct assault upon it. Article VI of the Constitution, after all, provides that “[t]his Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof, and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States and of the several states, shall be the Supreme Law of the Land, and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.” In the end, it is one thing to argue that an act of Congress is unconstitutional, but another thing entirely to arge that States have the authority to nullify otherwise constitutional acts of Congress. And the Tea Party seems to be taking the latter approach.
An objective observer would call all of this “re-writing,” not “restoring.” And there is no remotely comparable activity occuring on the political left. As one author has noted, “the self-proclaimed party of conservatism has become a constitutional graffiti movement.”
Our modern Anti-Federalists
In its attempt to portray itself as the defenders of the Constitution, the Tea Party appropriates the legacy of the Founding Fathers. However, the Federalist Papers, and the actions of Washington, Hamilton, Adams, and Marshall in office, reflect a rather different view of federalism and the nature of the Constitutional compact. That’s not surprising. They knew that the Constitution created a strong national government- indeed, that was the point of the entire process of calling the Constitutional convention in Philadelphia in the first place. Such a vision is fundamentally at odds with reading the 10th Amendment as a veritable straight jacket restricting national power, with support for Cantor’s Repeal Amendment and state “nullification” laws, or with repealing the 16th Amendment.
Indeed, a common thread running through much of the Tea Party’s view of the Constitution is a desire to eviscerate the power of the federal government. In their dogmatic opposition to a vigorous central governing authority, the Tea Party actually voices views similar to those expressed by opponents of the Constitution during the ratification debates. They are the modern heirs of the Anti-Federalists, and not of the Founders. And that’s problematic, because if the Anti-Federalists had prevailed in the early years of the Republic, it is unlikely America would have grown into the prosperous, free, powerful, and united nation spanning an entire continent that it ultimately became… or perhaps, even survived.
“Facts are stubborn things”
These facts frame what the Tea Party means by “Restore the Constitution.” They do not mean the document that we have actually had during the course of our history. They do not mean the document we have lived with for the past two hundred years- the one that helped our nation achieve hitherto unprecedented levels of prosperity and freedom. And however loudly they may say they love the Constitution and the Founders, the truth is that they would amend or repeal crucial elements of it, effectively jettison more then two centuries’ of jurisprudence, and redefine federalism in a way that reverses the outcome of the Constitutional ratification debates, and even of the Civil War.
In the end, I don’t think it’s the Constitution that the Tea Party wants to restore; it’s the Articles of Confederation.
Camillus is a former Republican Party officer who was involved in campaigns at both the local, state, and federal levels during the 2010 elections.
This sure isn’t going to sit well with some folks.
Actually, it sounds to me like some of the TTP mentioned here want to gut the entire Constitution like a fish, rather than restore it.
Perhaps Camillus is right in a certain way. The Tea Party should go back a step further than just the so-called “Founding Fathers.” I would suggest going back to key figures in the ratification conventions in Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, and North Carolina who refused to vote in favor of ratification until they got a solemn promise from the original writers that the founding document would contain a clear expression of the limitation of federal powers. From that demand and solemn promise came the Bill of Rights approved by the first Congress. That included the 10th Amendment, the original suggested draft of which came from the balking Massachusetts ratification convention under the leadership of Sam Adams. Yep, I would support going just a wee step further back on this.
And then there are a whole bunch of people out there who see the Constitution as being a flexible document that will incorporate current times like travel past the horse and buggy, etc etc. This return to some idyllic time that wasn’t so idyllic is not even realistic.
advances in technology are irrelevant to the fundamental rights of man; concepts like liberty and personal freedom are immutable, and just as relevant today and tomorrow as they were in the times of the magna carta and the american revolution. it was against the abuses to these self-evident truths that the constitution was enacted, and if the powers that be want to subvert that document to mean whatever they want it to mean, then to hell with those powers, i spit on them all
@e
and don’t forget one man’s liberty is another man’s chains.
They all fought like dogs over a bone about that said Constitution and it took quite a while to ratify it. It wasn’t all sweetness and light.
Of course advances will change things. I am getting to the point that the entire discussion described by Camillius about preserving the Constitution by changing it is almost too silly to have a realistic discussion about.
Camillus was spot on.
e, you are being silly and you know it! this analysis was comprehensive, extremely well thought out, and scarily on target.
leg·er·de·main Noun /ˌlejərdəˈmān/ /ˈlejərdəˌmān
Synonyms:
noun: prestidigitation, jugglery, sleight of hand, magic, hocus-pocus
1. Skillful use of one’s hands when performing conjuring tricks
2. Deception; trickery
3.Article written by Camillus, in which night is day, tyranny is liberty, the employment of psuedo-intellectual professional gobbledygook intended to confuse nonspecialists
Elena, I respectfully disagree. I think E hit on a very good theme in #4 as did Wolverine in #2.
Look, no one that wants to ‘restore the Constitution’ wants to go back to slavery or unpaved roads. But, I for one would like a government that is limited and can’t tell me that I can’t have a gun or what I can’t do with my womb.
I think Camillus’s argument is on target as well. However, I think the Tea Party’s Constitutional angst has an even more simplistic origin – the loss of the 2008 election and the election of a non-white man as President of the United States. The proposed changes are their way of keeping more non-white children born of undocumented parents from becoming citizens and of keeping residents of some states from electing Democratic Senators at a time when they almost control the state houses.
Not a half bad hit piece, but a little dry. I agree with @Censored bybvbl , this would be far more entertaining if you could find a way to skillfully work the race card in.
Thank you for the comments everyone, and for the opportunity to share these reflections on this site.
The thesis is rather simple- you can’t restore what never existed. And despite the loud claims made by the Tea Party that they love the Constitution, and the Founders, they would actually gut the document, and substantially alter the nature of the federal compact. As I said, they are the heirs of the Anti-Federalists, not the Founders. And their vision of the Constitution is actually remarkably akin to the old Articles of Confederation.
@ Censored- there are deep currents of anxiety coursing through our nation right now. Economic, cultural, and yes, I agree, racial, fears feed into this.
E, respectfully, only a person who has never seriously paused and reflected on the nature of real tyranny- on Nazi Germany, on Stalin’s Russia, Ceausescu’s Romania, Hoxha’s Albania, Pol Pot’s Cambodia, or Kim Jung Il’s North Korea, could ever imply that the United States, or the federal government, is totalitarian. The implied powers doctrine, the 14th, 16th, and 17th Amendments, the Supremacy Clause – do you really mean to say that defending them is some Orwellian slight of hand confusing liberty and tyranny? It is irresponsible to speak in this way about our democratically elected government- it diminishes the real horror that true tyranny represents.
There is high irony in this- in American history, it is state governments that have primarily been the destroyers of liberty, and the defenders of inequality. I’m obviously thinking here of the Jim Crow-era South. And states’ rights and nullification were arguments they deployed against federal attempts to ensure that all citizens, no matter their race, partook of the same liberty.
It is also ironic to see such revisionist thinking from self-styled “conservatives.” I thought conservatives cared about preserving and extending communities over time; that they valued institutional legitimacy, and perceived it to be a fragile, precious thing? I would respectfully submit that those important insights are not in evidence in the Tea Party. Which is why, despite what the Fox talking heads may say, it really isn’t a “conservative” movement at all.
World English Dictionary
deconstruction (ˌdiːkənˈstrʌkʃən) [Click for IPA pronunciation guide]
— n
a technique of literary analysis that regards meaning as resulting from the differences between words rather than their reference to the things they stand for. Different meanings are discovered by taking apart the structure of the language used and exposing the assumption that words have a fixed reference point beyond themselves
———————————————————-
If there are no fixed reference points, then meaning is established in the mind of the reader. Meaning becomes a matter of perception based on the reader’s background, experiences and belief systems. Hence, we have people who interpret the Constitution (and any other written piece) differently than others. We put our trust in judges and juries to decipher meaning when those same people are threatened by our own humanity which is subjective.
Deconstruction is only one way of reading literature. Historic and biographical interpretations are being used by the Tea Party and other groups to support their points of view. However, members of any group attempting interpretation are at the same risk we all are–reading into a document what we want to.
I would tend to take a more pragmatic approach. Do our laws and systems benefit most people? If not, fix the system and stop giving in to philosophical distractions.
@marinm
The government then was more apt to tell you what to do with your own womb than it is now. Those kinds of personal issues should not be dependent on what state you live in.
Respectfully, as I’ve been told by you on more than one occassion Moon, you can move.
So, I would offer that if it’s not allowed in Virginia then move to Maryland. Each state is a petridish of how the local populace wants to govern and be governed.
Not as easy to move when it’s a federale law. 😉
there is a concept called “soft tyranny”, which i first learned about from mark levin and his latest work (conservative manifesto) “liberty and tyranny” (available from amazon.com or from his website marklevinshow.com), but upon inquiring a little discover that it was an idea first coined by Alexis de Tocqueville in 1835. to quote wikipedia:
soft tyranny occurs whenever the social conditions of a particular community hinder any prospect of hope among its members. For Tocqueville, hope is the driving force behind all democratic institutions. As such, whenever this all-encompassing hope is taken away from the people, liberal democracy fails. Examples of this failure can be seen in the Weimar Republic of Germany during the 1930s or in the French Third Republic around 1940. Hope for a better future effectively died in both of the aforementioned situations. As a result, fascist regimes were established to fill the void left by the departure of hope.
end quote. so no, we don’t have death camps yet (although death panels are just around the corner), but obama’s policies are leading us down Friedrich von Hayek’s road to serfdom, a road on which von Hayek (again quoting wikipedia) warned of the danger of tyranny that inevitably results from government control of economic decision-making through central planning, and in which he argues that the abandonment of individualism, liberalism (in the true meaning of the word- e), and freedom inevitably leads to socialist or fascist oppression and tyranny and the serfdom of the individual.
@marinm
Thaat was not an ‘if you don’t like it move’ kind of comment. I did suggest living in Nevada or some other remote place where services aren’t wanted or expected. I do see that as a solution for people who don’t want, expect or demand govt. services. (and trust me, out there you aren’t going to get them.) And I don’t mean that disrespectfully. I do think that most people around here want and expect certain civilities. I know folks who think the county is too rugged for them. And that’s ok. They live in the City. They get their streets cleaned a lot more often than we do.
As for what I believe we are calling state’s rights–depends. Education-states’ right. Allowing contraception to be sold–national.
That death panel stuff is pure hype. In fact, it makes me sick to think that something that serious would be used for political gain. Anyone who has ever been a decision maker with a terminally ill loved one knows exactly what is meant by end of life decisions and conferences. It is critical to be dealing with accurate information. And that information is not free. People’s professional time is still a service.
E, you’ve just inspired me to write another post examining the dangerous nature of Levin and the rest of the “conservative-entertainment-complex.” The hysteria, conspiracy theories, and ahistorical misinformation dished out on a daily basis by the CEC is a greater threat to freedom and liberty, and to the future of our nation, than anything Obama has done, or is ever likely to do.
As to hope- you ought to go read my prior article on agape posted on this very site- I think it is the Tea Party that is the manifestation of political hopelessness in our nation.
And as to Obama… look, cap and trade was a Republican, market based idea- now it is a ploy to strip liberty and make the US into East Germany. Healthcare reform does not include “death panels”- this simply isn’t true. The radio hosts you listen to are lying to you. The auto-bailouts are no more an example of “socialism” then was the creation of Conrail in the mid 70’s during the Ford administration (for those that don’t know what I’m talking about here, the federal government literally took over the private sector freight rail industry in the northeastern United States and ran it as a quasi-public entity for over a decade).
The Beck’s and Levin’s of the world are not scholars searching for truth in an honest way. They are carnival style hucksters looking to make a buck. And their currency is fear. They have brought us to a point where someone like Sarah Palin can, without missing a beat, assert that that access to adequate healthcare isn’t a fundamental human right, but access to dessert is. Now that’s some topsy-turvy tea.
again the liberal canard that conservative masters are only in it for the money. was fear the currency of paul revere when he warned everyone that the british were coming? like the average roman who was more concerned with the pebble in his shoe than the fate of legions in foreign lands (cato the elder), unfortunately the average american is not very aware of the undercurrents that are about to become catastrophic, and tremendous kudos to rush, beck, levin and the other giants who stand up and fight, and proclaim, we will not go quietly into the night! there is nowhere else to go, america is last man standing
The WaPo had an interesting article today whcih fits right into the discussion – the two new rules the GOP will implement are the reading of the Constitution and then require every bill to come forward have a citation as to the constitutional authority.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/29/AR2010122901402.html
Maybe you should just directly address his counterpoint that tyranny need not involve torture and murder, instead of launching ad hominem attacks on radio personalities.
Moon, right there with you on the hype around Death Panels – that was just pure propaganda on multiple levels. Also showed, especially in this Commonwealth, how little people understood an individual’s right, and enabling of the family/caregiver to make an informed decision for end-of-life, was first established in Virginia almost 30 years ago.
Virginia was one of the first States to enact this right. The Virginia Natural Death Act of 1983. That Act was further strengthened by the Patient Self-Determination Act of 1991, and the Virginia Health Care Decision Act of 1992.
Every level of health care professional in Virginia must abide by those laws. My wife, being a Critical Care Nurse and now the Director of a Cardiac Surgical ICU & Stepdown, does counsel individuals and family members/caregivers on the options.
Oh my…..
A very good essay. Completely wrong, though…..
Not in execution, but in the principles behind the ideas expressed.
McCollugh vs Maryland allowed successive Congresses to enact laws that over-reached because their “intentions” are good. This allows them to have no limits on their powers as long as their stated goal is within Constitutional guidelines. However, that definition of “Constitutional” seems to change and always in a way that gives the federal government more power. If the words of the10 Amendment are not followed, then it has no meaning. The term “expressly” is irrelevant. The Amendment is quite clear. There must be limits on federal power. The problem with implied powers is that politicians tend to invent them on the spot to apply to whatever they feel is necessary to advance their agenda.
Repeal of the direct elections of Senators would bring power back to the states. Where in the Tea Party statements do you find the Tea Party against the decentralization of power? It is easier to influence a states legislation than the federal government. Camillus shows that he has great respect for the Founders, yet, their idea of allowing states to choose the Senator is wrong? We already have representatives. In fact, many TP want the House enlarged. States are now treated as subjects of the federal government. The Founders believed that unfettered democracy was NOT a good thing. And progressives believe that it is.
The Tea Party is not for “amending” the 14th Amendment. It wants it CLARIFIED. Because the Supreme Court ruled that children of LEGAL immigrants are citizens, the Tea Party wants it clarified to see if that applies to ILLEGAL aliens. In our view, it should not.
This statement is incorrect: “If it were ever adopted, it would mean that there would be no uniform national law- different federal laws would be enforced in different states.”
If the Repeal Amendment is passed, that federal law would be null and void throughout the land. It would be repealed completely. When Congress is passing unread, omnibus bills whose ramifications totally change the nature and power of the federal government, whose powers are unknown until enacted, that force both states and citizens to act in manners that can do them harm, a check needs to be enacted.
Here is a better explanation of the concerns of Camillus by the author of the Repeal Amendment: http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=12144
Camillus seems to feel that Tea Party attempts to rein in an unchecked Federal government is dangerous. Where would we be without the might and authority of the federal government? Well, take a look at where we are at. Are we in a good place?
Camillus actually gets it and that’s what scares him. He is in favor of centralized power. The Tea Party DOES want to take away some of the power of the federal government. The Congress has shown that it is irresponsible with our money. The Income tax gives too much power to the federal government over the citizen and is too intrusive. The Income tax also gives too much power to Congress over the actions of business. Congress tweeks the income tax to advance the agenda du jour. Starving the beast is the only way to bring it back under control. Look at the current debates in Congress now over the tax rate. Would we be having such divisiveness if there was no income tax? The “death” tax is a perfect example. Assets passed to heirs is treated as income. Some in Congress want to confiscate that wealth, up to 50%. Some feel that even that is not enough. Free citizens have to justify to the IRS how they make, spend, or invest THEIR property. The government feels that the citizenry’s income is the government’s first. That attitude is shown by many statements issued by many Congressmen.
Personally, I don’t think that Congress will EVER give up that power. That power is what enables them to demand bribes, um… election contributions.
I see in Camillus’s writings the idea, first advanced in McCollugh v Maryland, that its ok for the government to do whatever it wants as long as its intentions are good. And, unfortunately, that is a VERY Republican idea. It was the Democrats that opposed that idea, historically. Now, both parties are in agreement with that idea. That’s why there is such panic on the GOP side about the Tea Party and the resurgent ideals of LIMITED government. Just because the ideas expressed in 200 years of jurisprudence was enacted and thus driving our nation’s development, it doesn’t mean that all of it was right or a good idea. Marshall was a man with an agenda, too.
I usually don’t rebut arguments I didn’t make: I never said tyranny had to involve torture and murder. Would Hoxha’s Albania, or Stalin’s Russia, have been any less tyrannies had they never tortured a prisoner, or killed a soul? Of course they would have been.
The response to this would be a post of its own- for now, suffice it to say that we live in a society where the courts are open, the laws are enforced, and we democratically elect our representatives. We can debate whether Cap and Trade, or Health Care Reform, or any other action taken by the Obama administration is good policy, or bad policy- but it’s facile to analogize any of them to “tyranny.”
And as to ad hominem- have no fears- rest assured, when I turn my attention to this one, the end product will be a comprehensive indictment.
Cargosquid, you’d be singing a different tune if Virginia’s House and Senate were firmly Democratic, but two Republicans were likely to get the popular vote for US Senate.
Where were these Johnny-come-lately Tea Partiers during Bush’s administration? You’ll have a hard/ impossible time convincing me that this is anything other than sour grapes over the election of 2008. I don’t believe a bunch of middle aged and older beer-bellied white guys have suddenly become Constitutional experts. They just have been bombarded by fear tactics from the Republican right-wing – the same element that wants to drive all the moderates from their party.
Cargo- love a good debate of ideas- you inspired this one 🙂
paul krugman confirms death panels at 0:33 (look on amanpour’s face: priceless)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6fZTntL13ZY
@Moon-howler
I think we actually sort of agree but are coming at it from different angles and using different words. 😉
Now, my issue of course is let’s say I move to Nevada and get less services because that’s how Nevada rolls. Can I pay less taxes? I think that’s where the equation sort of breaks. As in Nevada I pay the same federale taxes as someone in New York does. So, I get hit with the penalty (tax) without the benefit (earmark).
So, my suggestion is make the federales so small they have to treat everyone equally.
Question for the peanut gallary about death panels.
When an insured patient needs a procedure and it’s reviewed by the company and the company rejects based on a mix of poor prognosis, cost, loss ratio, etc. we’re for the most part OK with that but when we talk about the government take over of healthcare that we suddenly have to avoid the term death panel.
Aren’t they the same? Someone deciding who lives and who dies?
I just trust a corporation to make that call over my government.
@Marin,
I don’t care much for the insurance companies being able to deny acceptable medical procedures to someone who is sick.
End of life counselling is a different matter. It happens all the time. I don’t think it is the government deciding who lives and who dies. It is still the medical community. It is a matter of who pays for the counselling.
Here’s a great explanation on the repeal of the 17th from Randy Barnetts WSJ article.
http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB10001424052748703466704575489572655964574-lMyQjAxMTAwMDEwNTExNDUyWj.html#articleTabs%3Darticle
(Apparently, if you hit “email” it will send you the article for free for 7 days.)
Can’t see the article but this comment is great:
From a Stephen Dejean:
Not true David. Let’s just assume that the 17th Amendment was ratified with the best of intentions and just focus on what ensued after its ratification. First, since 1806, the Senate had a unanimous filibuster rule — any Senator could hold up any and all legislation simply by talking on the Senate floor. Thus, no law that would harm or take away power from a State could even be considered because it would be held up. In 1917, after just two elections (1914 & 1916) and where now 2/3 of the senators had been popularly elected, the Senate voted on a 2/3 filibuster rule (this was later reduced to 3/5 in the 1970s and was almost changed to a simple majority rule five years ago). Why? Because just as the Founding Fathers foresaw, the incentives for Senators changed. When they were selected by the State Legislatures the best way for a senator to guarantee his re-election was to do what would be best for his home state. Now that a senator was directly elected, the best way for him to guarantee his re-election was to do the bidding of his wealthiest campaign donors. And the only way that he could show them that he was worthy of their campaign contributions was if he had the ability to pass more laws. And the best way to ensure that more laws were passed was to remove roadblocks to passing laws such as the unanimous filibuster rule. Do you think that a majority of senators, working with their State Legislatures and dependent upon them for re-election, would have ever agreed to do away with the unanimous filibuster rule? Next, prior to the 17th, what senator would actually vote for a bill that transferred more power to the federal government at the expense his home State? That would have been political suicide, but now, as long as the senator could get the voting majority of his public to believe that it was not against their interest (even if it was against the State’s interest), he could still get re-elected.
And this is the problem with the 17th Amendment; it’s not that more direct democracy is necessarily bad, but it’s that the Founding Fathers set up the Senate to be the representative of the States in the federal government, and now that representation is gone and has been replaced by national party politics just like the House. Why did the Constitution give the power of ratifying treaties and confirming the President’s cabinet appointees and judicial nominees to the Senate and not the House? It’s because (i) populist politics were not supposed to play a role in those issues and (ii) the States were supposed to have a say in those matters. Prior to the 17th, there were no contentious Supreme Court hearing confirmation hearings. Why? Because those hearings did not make for good campaign re-election themes; now they do. Prior to the 17th, would anyone outside of a state ever care about or donate to the political campaign of a senator? No. Now, it is commonplace.
The Great Depression notwithstanding, what senator would have gladly surrendered the power of his State to regulate wheat production within its own borders to the federal government if he was dependent upon his State’s Legislature for re-election? How many Democratic senators last year would have voted to saddle their states with the higher costs and mandates of Obamacare if they were dependent upon their State Legislature for re-election?
However, the 17th Amendment was not a stand-alone improvement solely for a better democracy. Also ratified in 1913 was the 16th Amendment to give the federal government the ability to spend money since it was now able to tax income, and at the same time the Federal Reserve was created to (indirectly) enhance the power of the federal government. These three items were part of the progressive agenda to remove limits on federal power and break free of the constraints that the Constitution placed on the federal government. Check out the chart in the prior WSJ article, “Principles for Economic Revival”. Look at where the % of GDP spent by the federal government really starts to ramp up, looks like it starts even before our entry into WWI (1917) and continues through 1920, well after the war was over (and then Harding and Coolidge brought it back down, until Hoover and FDR shot it to the moon).
And then Paul Cooper wrote:
hink about it in terms of constituency, Mr. Ditch.
Prior to the 17th Amendment, Senators served at the discretion of the state governments they represented. They did not stand for election, and they therefore did not need to solicit campaign funds from special interests.
After the 17th Amendment, Senators began having to stand for election, which required soliciting campaign funds, which we all know means accepting large contributions from special interests who expect to receive something for their money.
No one seriously argues that the interest of the monied groups who fund election campaigns are the same as those of the states. Many Senators collect contributions from groups not even located in their states.
So how does removing the direct connection between the state and its representatives in the Senate serve the interest of the state or its citizens? Who really gained influence?
As for the Great Depression: I have no difficulty believing that a Senate less beholden to the special interests of the day might well have been more inclined to stand up to FDR and refuse some of his less wise policy provisions. Whether this is true or not is impossible to tell; what we do know is that with the system as it is now, they didn’t.
@Camillus
You supported your argument by listing six or the world’s most bloodthirsty and murderous regimes, thereby implying the face of tyranny must sport a Hitler mustache, if you will.
Was Alexis de Tocqueville just a crank?
For the record, I’m a pro-choice, pro-gay rights Republican from the libertarian wing of the party, so I’m pretty sure that would make me a moderate. I don’t feel the least bit “threatened” by the Tea Party types, nor do I feel they’re trying to drive me from the party. Federal overreach is not a new condition that suddenly materialized in 2008, it’s been going on pretty much nonstop since Woodrow Wilson. To the extent that the Tea Party people are useful in advancing libertarian thought within the party, I am thankful.
@ Cargo “This statement is incorrect: ‘If it were ever adopted, it would mean that there would be no uniform national law- different federal laws would be enforced in different states.’ If the Repeal Amendment is passed, that federal law would be null and void throughout the land. It would be repealed completely.”
My bad, I was talking about the “nullification” statutes proposed at the state level relating to Obamacare, not Cantor’s proposal, and I should have made that more clear. Although, in the end, I think Cantor’s is premised on a faulty reading of the Constitutional compact- the federal governments sovereignty derives from the people, not from the states. Do we really want to refight the Civil War? I sure hope not, because I would not look good in gaudy Zouave attire and I might not be physically fit enough to march all the way to Richmond.
@ Cargo: “Are we in a good place?”
Well, the Constitution has stood, tolerably well, the test of time. It has given us the flexibility to modernize without to many revisions. Under it, we’ve gone from being a third-rate power that hardly even constituted a unified nation and was beset by petty state and regional jealousies to being the single most powerful and prosperous nation on the Earth. We’ve survived civil war, and gone on to save the world from the Nazi’s and the Soviet’s. And you are advancing a theory of constitutional interpretation and construction that, had it prevailed, would have made all of that, in my judgment, impossible. Though we have hit some bumps in the road of late, I can still say with certainty: There has never been a better time to be alive, nor a better place to be living, in human history, then America today. We tower mightily.
Finally, as to the children of illegal immigrants… do not, if you love liberty, be so hasty to create intergenerational statelessness, nor a permanent Helot underclass barred from partaking fully in the opportunities of America… Have you thought through the long term implications of branding thousands “homo sacer”? It is move towards a dystopian future, towards Bexhill. We’d do well to avoid it.
@ Cato: “from the libertarian wing of the party”
That, in my opinion, is what the Tea Party essentially represents. And it is a big reason why I’m such an outspoken opponent of it. To me, libertarianism- or to be a bit more precise, the Ron/Rand Paul style of it- is a flawed ideology. It is cold, Darwinian… ultimatly, souless and cruel (note that I’m not saying this about you specifically). It is the politics of selfishness- me- at the expense of the community. It is not surprising that it should be on the rise at a time when America in enthralled with what others have termed “the Cult of Self.”
The best description of extreme, ideological libertarianism I’ve ever read is this:
“If Marxism is the delusion that one can run society purely on altruism and collectivism, then libertarianism is the mirror-image delusion that one can run it purely on selfishness and individualism.”
@Camillus
It’s revealing that you’d use a pejorative like selfishness to describe defense of individual liberties. Not surprising, as that’s been the meme of the collectivists in as far as I can remember.
Apparently our ideological conflict can be crystallized very simply. I believe that people have a charitable duty to engage and support the communities and other social units they choose membership in. I personally believe that, yes, I am my brother’s keeper. The difference between us is that you seem to believe that these belief systems should be enforced through government force and coercion, and I do not.
Sorry, but I just can’t have a serious discussion about state-sponsored agape.
But you are right about one thing – those of us interested in preserving the supremacy of individual liberties aren’t in the least bit interested in having any sort of discourse with collectivists/progressives on the subject. Honestly, I’m only interested in the complete and total destruction of that agenda, and what I can do to speed it along.
I enjoy reading your work, and you’ll find a very receptive audience here for your ideas. I’m just not one of them 🙂
I posit that the principal thrust of the Tea Party movement as a whole is not, as Camillus suggests, to fundamentally alter the Constitution but, rather, to elect to office individuals who respect that document to the fullest, including the 10th Amendment. In my opinion, political events over the last century in this country have virtually nullified the original intent and the very meaning of the 10th Amendment. It is, for most intents and purposes, being ignored by the central government in our contemporary political world. We seem to find all sorts of ways to get around it, based ultimately on the hope that a politicized Supreme Court will come down on our particular side of the proposition at issue. All this is done under the rubric of providing for the “general welfare” of the people —- whether the “people” like it or not. I believe the time has now come when the “people” are saying rather loudly that they want to have a stronger voice in their own welfare.
I would reply to Camillus that there are those of us who have , indeed, paused and reflected on the nature of the foreign tyrannies of the last century. We had to because we were on the front lines in the battle, head to head with a foe whom you above all had to understand in order to make a fight of it. That entailed being face to face in the arguments. It also entailed working in such places and, in some cases. actually living in everything from mundane one-party states to pseudo-Marxist and outright Marxist regimes. I would say that one of the most ubiquitous themes in all of those states was the claim that every action taken was simply in pursuit of the “general welfare” of the people. “We care, comrades. We are doing all this just for your benefit.” Yes, and woe be to any of the “people” who voiced an objection.
Camillus is spot on with regard to one thing. WE are not yet those other “people.” The participants at Philadelphia as well as the recalcitrants at some of those key ratification conventions managed to come up ultimately with a document that, unlike constitutions in totalitarian states, actually meant something. In my view, if we choose to squander that legacy in the interest of contemporary comforts and benefits, we risk a great deal. I fear that we are currently in a dangerous place — one where the central government seems less and less apt to have any confidence at all in the common sense of the people themselves. Instead of our elected representatives listening to us, they now tend too much to dictate to us and ignore our protestations. That is a turn of events which I personally do not like. I will buy into many things that are generally in the best interests of our general welfare even if I might disapprove at a personal level but I will not buy into the idea that I am to be ignored if I happen to disagree with some of it.
And now all this chatter has to give way to a call of nature. In responding to that call, I will have to turn on a light bulb the specifications of which are dictated by the central government. Then I will have to use a toilet with characteristics and functions cast into cement by a federal law which bars the purchase of any other. I sometimes wonder how the Founding Fathers would have reacted to something like that.
@ Cato- to me, part of the point of gov’t is to advance the common good. I look forward to our future debates!
@ Wolverine- Isn’t this entire blog discussion, the back and forth, proof that no “woe” descends upon the dissenter? And who is dissenting? Me, you, both of us? Again.. we’re not a totalitarian society- not even close to it. If you don’t like Obama, you had a chance to vote against him in 2008, and you’ll have a chance again in 2012. If you don’t like your congressman, vote against him/her. But if you want someone that perfectly reflects your vies in office, better start planning a run of your own. Anyway, that’s the beauty of democracy and life in a republic.
And as to the Founders- why, the answer is easy: they’d have reacted to electricity, and indoor plumbing, with wonder and astonishment 😉
[And probably a great deal of gratitude!!!! M-H]
e,
Give me a break, please! There are no death panels in Obama’s health care. This just in, if death panels exist, they are created by the insurance companies who decide what care you will and will have, unless of course, you are very wealthy and can pay for your own care. Do you know the name Wendell Potter? If not, you don’t understand the real crisis in health care.
http://wendellpotter.com/
“When Nataline Sarkisyan was denied the liver transplant her doctor thought could save her life, her mother and father brought her fight to the doorsteps of CIGNA insurance. By her side was American SiCKO Donna Smith and the California Nurses Association. The media picked up on the story which quickly became a public relations nightmare for CIGNA because of the real nightmare the Sarkisyan family was living. With no other choice, CIGNA finally approved Nataline’s liver transplant but it was too late. Nataline died two hours later.
Wendell Potter was a CIGNA executive at the time. He saw the Sarkisyan’s struggle from the inside of the profit-making company and knew that CIGNA would do whatever possible to protect the bottom line.”
e, you don’t have children, but I can guarantee you, if you did, you would no longer be towing the line for the insurance industry.
THAT was a freakin’ death panel, and it happens every single day to someone who is loved. Let’s pray it doesn’t happen to someone you love.
I LOVE IT, well, love in the most twisted sense. There are men here suggesting that we go back in time, WAAAAAY back, to a time before the constituion evolved to give women the right to vote and black citizens equal rights. HELLO, intellectual evolution is how we transform into more sophisticated and fair societies.
Where was this outrage when Bush had subverted the rules of FISA? Where was this outrage when the Patriot Act was passed? Bob Barr has been railing against the Patriot Act since he chose to no longer run for his senate seat. I wonder, where was the outrage when it was proven that Dick Cheney KNEW the yellow cake scare of Attah was not true?
The hysteria over the govt bailing out GM was simply unsubstantiated. Good lord, Obama was likened to Hitler for saving an American Coroporate Icon and, by the way, preserving MILLIONS of jobs.
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/6031690/gm_stocks_cause_rush_of_excitement_pg2.html?cat=27
Oh, and Cato, since when did “progress” become a dirty word???????????????????
Birthright citizenship is what sets this great nation apart from the rest of the industrialized world. Why has America avoided so much of the conflict that has faced other nations?
Because, in the end, 95% of our country are Americans! We may have some hyphens, but they all end in -American.
I say 95% because out of 310,000,000, maybe we have 12 million that are out of status (5%)
Solzhenitsyn describes the fundamental problem in health care today- depersonalization- in his book “The Cancer Ward.” Except, unlike in the USSR, much of the depersonalization here is market driven- by insurance companies.
I think that access to adequate healthcare is a fundamental human right, but I opposed the HCR bill. My problem with HCR is that it’s really healthcare funding reform- it does not address depersonalization. Real reform would empower doctors and patients, at the expense of insurers and the gov’t.
Bailing out GM and saving the domestic auto-industry was a good thing. A necessary thing. Just like keeping the domestic freight rail industry operating in the mid-’70’s was.
Thank you for finding Camillus, Moonhowlings. I would like to see more conservatives brave enough to speak out against these inmates who think should be running the asylum. This kind of mindless idolatry and worship of a warped notion of the Founding Fathers is not good for conservatives, and not good for the country.
“The media picked up on the story which quickly became a public relations nightmare for CIGNA because of the real nightmare the Sarkisyan family was living. With no other choice, CIGNA finally approved Nataline’s liver transplant but it was too late.”
And that’s the difference between private and state approved care. One can actually fight against private care problems. And I have a child, with pre-existing conditions. And I don’t want a government run health care system. And the HCR bill did have “death panels” in them. The bill set up “cost=benefit” panels. Hyperbole named them “death panels”. Great for sound bites, but not long term discussion.
According to the courts Bush didn’t subvert FISA. And where is your outrage that Obama is continuing Bush’s policies. Our outrage with Bush started way before any FISA problems. It started with the creation of DHS, the Prescription Drug Plan, and that whole “compassionate conservative” label. It was only until Beck demonstrated that conservatives were NOT alone and that organization was possible, and then Santelli’s statement about TEA Parties, that usually unorganized citizens were able to come together.
The bailout of GM was an outrage because the government was awarding cronies, the unions, over the other stakeholders in the government managed bankruptcy, billions were squandered, the company is STILL losing money, and I don’t want my tax money being given to any corporation to bail them out. If we have to bail out GM, where is my PERSONAL bailout? Where are the bailouts for all the small businesses that fail? If a corp can’t be allowed to fail, then they will continue to make bad decisions
It’s not, at least not to me. Neither are Marxist, Socialist, Communist or Democrat (that was awfully repetitive, wasn’t it?).
@Cargo- paradigm shift, think “our tax” not, “my tax.”
The alternative, letting GM & Chrysler potentially liquidate would have been a disaster. The cascade effects impacting other industries would have been enormous.
As to Beck… what he has done is to bring together what amounts to a political version of the Island of Misfit Toys.
“Compassionate conservatism” is a project that needs to be taken up again. It is an invitation to something better. The Tea Party is at best a trip into a historical cul-de-sac; at worst, it’s a journey over the cliff. The demographics are simply stacked against it. The groups it draws primary support from make up a declining share of the electorate. And it turns off everyone else. Long term, that’s a loosing formula. It is the same structural political problem facing the GOP at the national level. Compassionate conservatism was the best hope we had of reaching younger, and minority voters- and it still is. Just injecting “compassion” into the lexicon and cognition of the modern GOP would be a revolutionary, game changing, accomplishment.
when you sign a contract with a health insurance company, the company is obligated to provide you with whatever is stipulated in the contract. if they renege, you sue their ass. what are you going to do when the insurance companies are hounded out of business thanks to obamacare, and you’re forced to rely on the munificence of lord obama for all your healthcare needs (and every other need)? good luck
birthright citizenship is not what set this great nation apart. this great nation was doing just fine before the whole concept of borders and control over our own destiny were thrown to the winds.
operation wetback instituted by president eisenhower was a 1954 operation by the ins to remove about one million illegal immigrants from this country. look it up. like i mentioned once before, if the un decides to repatriate 100 million refugees from around the world into the us, are we obligated to accept them too? how about 200 million? a billion? where and when does it end?
progress became a dirty word when it was subverted by the left to mean something entirely different from the original intention. ditto liberal. ditto any future label the left attempts to appropriate for itself. hence, the concept of the no-label crowd. always an attempt to foist a package of goods that if exposed, would be rejected by a majority of the american public
E, since it’s just passed the Christmas season, let me suggest reading Matthew 2:13-33. It has something relevant to say about about the treatment of refugees fleeing persecution in their homelands.
persecution is one thing. most illegal aliens are not fleeing persecution, but seeking a better life for themselves and their family. if i were born in latin america, i’d come here too! but at some point this migration needs to stop, or the boat will be sunk
The GOP needs to focus on becoming the party of competence, not compassion. The environment is one of increasing volatility and dwindling patience of voters. Our leaders need to go about the business of solving problems that people care about with efficiency and speed. Whichever party solves that riddle will have the basis for a lasting majority, and compassion or lack thereof will have nothing to do with it. Add to that the fact that Republicans are controlling a process in which they will redraw four times as many districts as Democrats, and I think you’ll see the playing field significantly tilted in the Republican’s favor for the next ten years, at least.
(I apparently hit submit by accident.)
It is not the job of the government to “bailout” or prop up favored industries. Are you happy that the FED also bailed out GE? And GE employees actually have positions in the Obama administration….Go figure.
Bailing out GM did not “save the domestic auto industry.” Ford and Chrysler are still there. Government bailouts will only happen to the politically connected. Chrysler, Lockheed, Conrail, etc.. were all politically connected. Why is AMTRAK still running? If there is no demand, why shore it up?
(Had to run an errand. Back now.)
Would a Republican bailout of FedEX over UPS sit well? Or the other auto companies that have thousands, if not millions of employees in America? Toyota? Honda? Would a bailout of Chrysler when it was merged with Daimler be ok?
@Ken Anderson
Warped idolatry of whom? The Founders? The Constitution? We should not worry about violations of our rulebook?
Oh and Camillus has not identified himself, and does not appear to be, at least to me, to be a conservative. Republican does not always equate to conservative.
@Camillus
“Compassionate conservatism” worked sooooo well the last time…..
Its an insult. It implies that conservatives, unless they use the approved power of the government, are not compassionate. It implies that there is something different about your conservatism that is better…..that conservatism, in general is not compassionate and that it needs to change. It does not question the false liberal premise that conservatism is bad.
Bush did not win because he used that term. He was ridiculed for it. He won because the alternatives were absolutely, freaking horrible. He was the best in a poor selection of candidates. Compassionate conservative is Democrat-lite. Apparently, the voters didn’t want Democrat-lite and the GOP was sent into the wasteland. Twice. Now, they’ve won an unprecedented number of seats, both at the state and federal level, and not one word of “compassionate conservatism” was heard.
@Cargo, funny, I always thought I was a conservative- in my professional life, and before that, in college, I’ve usually been the most conservative person in the room. But I’m from an older, more tolerant, more thoughtful, school of conservatism… think Buckley, or Russell Kirk.. Kirk once wrote that one of conservatisms advantages was that, unlike liberalism in America, it was not doctrinaire, not wedded to a single unyielding ideology. He said it could accommodate a great diversity of opinion. That it had no Test Act…. I often wonder what he would make of the present state of things if he were still with us today.