ANTI-CONSTITUTIONALIST RANT AND MY TAKE

 

I read a very thoughtful blog post the other day concerning the unconstitutional actions of our federal government. The item that gave me the most cause for thought was not in the post itself, but in a long rebuttal comment following the article. The main thrust of the comment was centered on the writer’s perception that right wing conservatives are trying to take away his “rights” by forcing him to live by some two hundred year old laws and that he was determined to make his own decisions. He went on to say he would not be silenced by a bunch of fanatics and a piece of moldy paper. The condemnation of constitutional conservatives was so uninformed that it was almost humorous. Here was a citizen, I presume, declaring his rights to free speech, free press, and the right to live his own life without interference from anyone while condemning the constitution.

First, he is correct, the constitution is an old document. It is also a unique document that changed the world and his life for the better even though he doesn’t realize it. His assertion that the language and concepts of the constitution are so dated that they should have no bearing on modern issues demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of history. At the risk of being incredibly redundant I think it is important to note that every one of the “rights”, he was demanding we acknowledge as belonging to him, are in fact codified in the constitution. The very document that he claims is so outdated that we should relegate it to history is the one guaranteeing his rights. Our American English is somewhat different than the language used in the constitution but certainly not hard to understand. I also find it ironic that our uninformed commentator would use Germany and Japan as examples of modern governments we should use to update our constitution. The delegates to the constitutional convention took their responsibility very seriously. They had just thrown off the shackles of the oppressive English monarchy. The cost in lives and wealth of such a struggle against tyranny was fresh in their minds. The constitution was written in the hope of preventing any future government of the United States from becoming such a tyranny. The reason that the moldy old piece of paper is still so relevant is precisely because they were successful at crafting the constraints in the constitution against governmental oppression. The delegates studied the history of nations that had attempted citizen government and considered why every single one had failed. The constitution was written to create checks and balances designed to prevent the country from becoming a mobocracy. Democratic governments typically had subjugated minorities to the will of the majority without any recourse. Our constitutional framers declared that some rights belonged to every citizen and that they could not be voted away by any democratic majority. The enduring, in fact perpetual, nature of these rights is why the constitution is still so relevant. Citizens and states have authority set down in the constitution with the companion exclusion from interference by the federal government. When a constitutional conservative says the EPA or Roe vs Wade is unconstitutional he is not debating the need to protect the environment or trying to restrict the woman’s right to choose. The argument being made is that the issue is reserved to the state governments by the constitution and prohibited from the authorities granted to the federal government. The framers knew well from personal experience the dangers of too much centralized government authority and sought to reserve as much local (state) control over our lives as possible.

I will argue against the constitutional legality of the Department of Energy, the EPA and the Department of Education all day long not because of what they do but because the constitution guarantees that the citizens of the states get to make their own decisions in all such matters. The constitution sets down certain enumerated powers for the federal government and excludes it from all others. So to the writer of the anti-constitutional rant, know first that the document you are railing against is the very one protecting your right to do so.