Classic Jonah Goldberg on how the left is repulsed by the idea of sticking to the constitution:
Does anyone, anywhere, think legislators should vote for legislation they think is unconstitutional? Anyone? Anyone?
How about presidents? Should they sign such legislation into law?
Yet, according to this < the left's > creepy logic, there’s no reason for congressmen to pass, obey, or even consider the supreme law of the land. Reimpose slavery? Sure! Let’s see if we can catch the Supreme Court asleep at the switch. Nationalize the TV stations? Establish a king? Kill every first-born child? Why not? It ain’t unconstitutional until the Supreme Court says so!
Lol.... that's why you have to read this guy. The rest is at the link.
6 comments:
Spot-on column by Goldberg, but I would have included one more point: the oath of office taken by congressmen and senators.
I do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.
The president's oath of office also mentions defending the constitution.
Members of both parties are of course guilty of violating the oath, but I can't think of a single Democrat in the last 50 years that didn't take the oath without "purpose of evasion". In fact, if anyone took this oath seriously, it would preclude Leftists from any national elected office.
Ah, I just noticed he did include it a little bit at the end there.
Goldberg argues with style, and substance, too--but after reading him you nearly get the impression that this constitution-trampling is a relatively new thing.
That is, until you we get to the end of his entry: "The debate over whether the courts are the final word on the Constitution is more than 200 years old. The debate over whether they are the sole arbiter of constitutionality is extremely recent and extremely silly."
Well, OK. Maybe the debate over the courts' authority is a relatively new thing. Differing interpretations of the meaning and intent--if documents can intend--of the Constitution itself, are not.
The document has always been subject too, uh, interpretational improvisation (?). And it was probably intended to be that way. Thus we had the Louisiana Purchase, the expropriation of--to take one example--Cherokee property and senseless murder of Natives (in which case the executive branch DID interpret constitutional restrictions all on its own), expansion of slavery, the civil war emancipation of slaves, and the civil-war era due-process amendments, etc., etc. And it wasn't, of course, until the middle of the past century that restraints on police power became widely enforced, based on innovative interpretations of the Constitution.
The Constitution has several wordings that are vague and problematic to people of principle. For example, the 2nd Amendment: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Militia? Well-regulated? A supporter of the right of civilians to bear arms even in public, I can read this passage and with very large contortions of my imagination still meet with difficulty convincing myself it espouses anything like the neutral principle of arms rights I feel would add peace, safety, and justice were they allowed across more of the country. In other words, the Constitution doesn't take my side so clearly here. (And yes, I know about the authors' intentions, etc.) I'm left asking this: who doesn't wish the authors hadn't done a little better? Been a little clearer, maybe? Were "the Founders" being clumsy? Could they have possibly thought this would go without contention? The directness of the emancipatory amendment, on the other hand, very nearly guarantees it won't be subject to the vagaries of interpretation by our courts, legislature, or executive.
Liberals have been claiming the view Goldberg--and many a Republican--takes is simplistic and untenable. They're right. The Constitution remains what it always has been--a magnificent, but very protean set of laws and principles for the governance of the United States. Goldberg and the "Originalists" with whom he would likely agree are lucky their approach to Constitutional law is perennially and universally popular with the public.
I feel the Constitution is one of the best--if not THE best--feature of our system of governance. But it's simply not true that our document answers all the concerns of our political and societal life in clear and easy and readily identifiable terms. As the past century has shown, anybody can—with a straight face and a fair claim to credibility—say the Constitution is on his/her side.
The left has been very successful in persuading people that the Constitution mandates or allows whatever legislation they want to pass. And if required to provide a Constitutional mandate for every law passed, they could doubtless rise to the occasion there, too. Until Goldberg and his comrades (include me, please!) start arguing persuasively enough to move their interpretations of the Constitution off the parchment and into practice, how can we blame those on the left for suspecting them of a depredation of which they are truly guilty: that of inventing the facile, unserious, masturbatory demagoguery you excerpt here?
That's quite a bit to chomp on Mark, and I'd say I agree with it at a glance, but I think it's off the point slightly.
I don't know anyone I respect even a little who thinks that the sole arbiter of constitutionality should be the courts. Even liberals don't believe it... not really. If you don't believe me then try running an abortion ban through congress and see what they say.
The liberals who proposed this new bit of idiocy were trying to steal a rhetorical base and Jonah called them out on it. That's all.
Woah...I didn't realize quite how much I'd gone on.
As you say, nobody really believes the courts should be the sole arbiter of constitutionality--which they aren't. And as Goldberg writes, it was glib and cheap of the liberal "experts" to act like the courts always have been.
I just get tired of people saying the (to me uncontroversial) stuff about the importance of the Constitution--something that anyone can say--and wish they would get on with the important business of interpreting it persuasively.
Commenting purely on the militia piece, in the founder's time, and in fact still today, the militia was defined a EVERY able-bodied male between the ages of 16-60. Today, there is a formalized split between the "organized militia" embodied in the National Guard, and any of the various State Guard units, and the "unorganized militia" embodied in the said remainder of the adult population, as codified in US code.
Post a Comment