Napolitano: Most Presidents Ignore the Constitution
Republican 'n Democrat alike. A couple-a pert'nent pargraphs from an article written by one of the most articulate defenders of liberty and confederalism in our day, Judge Andrew P. Napolitano. Salyent points bolded by me:
When Franklin Delano Roosevelt first proposed legislation that authorized the secretary of agriculture to engage in Soviet-style central planning -- a program so rigid that it regulated how much wheat a homeowner could grow for his own family's consumption -- he rejected arguments of unconstitutionality. He proclaimed that the Constitution was "quaint" and written in the "horse and buggy era," and predicted the public and the courts would agree with him.
Remember that FDR had taken -- and either Mr. Obama or Mr. McCain will soon take -- the oath to uphold that old-fashioned document, the one from which all presidential powers come.
Unfortunately, these presidential attitudes about the Constitution are par for the course. Beginning with John Adams, and proceeding to Abraham Lincoln, Woodrow Wilson and George W. Bush, Congress has enacted and the president has signed laws that criminalized political speech, suspended habeas corpus, compelled support for war, forbade freedom of contract, allowed the government to spy on Americans without a search warrant, and used taxpayer dollars to shore up failing private banks.
All of this legislation -- merely tips of an unconstitutional Big Government iceberg -- is so obviously in conflict with the plain words of the Constitution that one wonders how Congress gets away with it.
In virtually every generation and during virtually every presidency (Jefferson, Jackson and Cleveland are exceptions that come to mind) the popular branches of government have expanded their power. The air you breathe, the water you drink, the size of your toilet tank, the water pressure in your shower, the words you can speak under oath and in private, how your physician treats your illness, what your children study in grade school, how fast you can drive your car, and what you can drink before you drive it are all regulated by federal law. Congress has enacted over 4,000 federal crimes and written or authorized over one million pages of laws and regulations. Worse, we are expected by law to understand all of it.
The truth is that the Constitution grants Congress 17 specific (or "delegated") powers. And it commands in the Ninth and 10th Amendments that the powers not articulated and thus not delegated by the Constitution to Congress be reserved to the states and the people. . . .
Everyone in government takes an oath to uphold the Constitution. But few do so. Do the people we send to the federal government recognize any limits today on Congress's power to legislate? The answer is: Yes, their own perception of whatever they can get away with.
Note th' two tendencies: that-a th' line of Adams, Lincoln, Wilson, Roosevelt 'n Bush, and that-a Jefferson, Jackson 'n Cleveland, th' former statist 'n centralist, th' latter anti-statist 'n decentralist. Sometimes, them two predilections t' governance are referred t', respectively, as th' "Hamiltonian" 'n "Jeffersonian" philosophies of constitutional construction.
Funny, thin, how most modern conservatives, who're supposed t' staind fir such principles as limited government 'n states rights, find theysevves in th' Adams-Lincoln-Wilson-Roosevelt-Bush ("Hamiltonian") skool, ain't it? And that they pride theysevves ohn they association with Abraham Lincoln, who, as is well documented, is arguably th' destroyer of the Framers' constitutional order par excellence?
Yet another indercashun-a how such "conservatives" really ain't such, and accordin'ly why they ain't no hope of th' GOP ever bein' a conservative political party. Modern "conservatives", for all they supposed love of th' Constutition, are really every bit as much its enemy as are modern liberals.
S. Jones
Snaggle-Tooth Jones
in Damn Fool Liberals and No-Account Neocons
|
2 Comments
Reader Comments (2)
Excellent post! The recurring theme seems to be that power and corruption breed power and corruption... inasmuch, there is no real check nor balance!
For instance, what are the chances of a US Constitutional amendment to, say, limit terms of Senators and Congressmen? Seeing as how they would have to be party to voting on their own forced retirement, and that many in congress have been there far too long to begin with, such an accounatbility would be laughable.
The Constitution is nothing more than a romanticized historical document... the sooner we all realize this and get back to consuming, the better off we will all be... pay no attention to the inexperienced man behind the curtain.
The Constitution is nothing more than a romanticized historical document...
Yep. And 'em ol' anti-Federalists' fears were well-justified, as history has proven. If'n we cain't git th' original fedrulism back, thin secession - with somethin' akin t' th' ol' Articles of Confderation in place - is th' ohnly alternative. If'n we're t'be free, att is.