Category: Government

No, I’m not speaking of 1994.  I mean to speak more abstractly for a moment.  I left a comment over at Kevin’s that I thought would be worth turning into a post, and maybe getting some discussion going over here as well.

Someone opined that “I am absolutely in support of -a- constitution that places explicit limits on government and I demand that the government respect those limits.” which is a statement I would agree with.  But what happens when the people don’t demand that?  What happens when the people keep electing representatives that weaken those limits? What if we can’t even agree on what those limits are?

I agree you need a written constitution that limits government, but people need to agree with the philosophical underpinnings of the document. No limits will long stand if the people don’t think those limits are important.  How, over the long run, you can sustain written limits on government in the face of a people opposed or indifferent to the limits without somehow limiting their suffrage, so that the wrong people don’t get the vote.  If you did this, I don’t know whether it would be moral.

We are a constitutional republic, rather than a democracy, but all that means is it takes a longer, takes more consensus, and takes more work to fundamentally alter the structure of the government. Can you see folks arguing today about whether Congress can establish a national bank? Over whether the federal government can purchase land? Our founders squabbled about this incessantly, but most people in modern times would agree that The Constitution permits the government to exercise power in this manner.  The Federalists won on these points.  Is that legitimate?

Popular Sovereignty as a source of government legitimacy presents a serious challenge for attempts to limit government absolutely. Some thinkers have, for this reason, rejected popular sovereignty as a source of legitimacy. You can make those kinds of academic arguments, but at the end of the day, I think they are just that. At some point you have to come to terms with the fact that the people are ultimately in the drivers seat over the long term no matter how clever a system of checks and balances you devise.

That isn’t say we should just acquiesce to this dangerous notion of a “Living Constitution”. In principle I believe in originalism, and I think we need to make the intellectual case for it. The task before us is to continue the same squabbling over the meaning of The Constitution that’s been happening over the past 232 years of this nation’s history.  If we want a limited government of enumerated powers, we have to argue why that’s important, and convince people. There is any way around this in a republican society.

If you believe in Popular Sovereignty, I don’t think there can be any right of revolution that’s not supported (or acquiesced to) at least a majority of the people provided you have a functioning, elected government. If you have an elected government, the majority can always change it through the ballot box. So where does that leave revolution?  Certainly not with any concept of an organic revolution of the whole of The People.  Where you do not have the support of the people, can you justify a violent revolution?  At what point does a revolution just become a civil war?  What do you do when two peoples have such irreconcilable differences that they can no longer live peacefully among one another?

Peoples can part ways, and have many times throughout history, either through peaceful means (India) or through violent means (USA).  Before that can happen, however, you need to create a “people” that share some kind of geographical area and culture you could speak of as a new nation. Outside of that, I don’t think revolution has much of a role to play in a situation where republican institutions are still functioning.

In New South Wales, they might be passing a law requiring legislators to be sober before voting.  We should do this here too.  It would keep Ted Kennedy from ever casting another vote as Senator.

Hat Tip to F&F

No really, it’s not a political debate. They just got it wrong. The Capitol Visitor Center opened today, and Heritage Foundation’s Matt Spalding highlights how Congress got it wrong.

In the Visitor Center’s Exhibition Hall, the theme is “E Pluribus Unum — Out of Many, One.” Initially, words etched in marble called that stirring phrase the nation’s motto. A bad plaster job now covers the reference, someone having noticed that, well, “E Pluribus Unum” is not our national motto. “In God We Trust” is.

You’d think for a project that ran more than double the projected costs and is nearly 5 years overdue, they would take some time to get it right. But what’s more troubling is the blatant left-wing bias that permeates the exhibit. The Washington Times reports on the butchering of the Constitution:

He singled out the display on “Knowledge,” which he said selectively cuts the powers granted to Congress by Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, reducing the full explanation “To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries” to an expansive grant: “The Congress shall have Power To … promote … useful Arts.”

The display says that grant of powers is the basis under which Congress has founded the Library of Congress, “promoted public education, supported the arts and sciences, and funded extensive research.”

Essentially anything in the Constitution that discusses a limit on power got chopped. Lovely.

The Times reports that members of both parties reviewed the education materials and approved them. In fact, the Architect of the Capitol, the office charged with creating the Visitor Center, noted in a letter that the GOP very specifically signed off on this interpretation:

In June of 2005, the Commission, under the Co-Chairmanship of Speaker Dennis Hastert and President Pro Tempore Senator Ted Stevens, unanimously approved the CVC exhibit plan and script of the thirteen minute orientation film. Subsequently, in December of 2006, the Commission unanimously approved the final version of the orientation film under the continuing leadership of Co-Chairmen Hastert and Stevens.

And because this is a gun blog, there’s no mention of the Second Amendment of any text of it anywhere in the educational materials or the script of the movie. Unfortunately, combined with the hatchet job done on the rest of the Constitution, these are gaps that not even a bad plaster job can fill.

UPDATE: Oh yeah, and Harry Reid is just happy he doesn’t have to smell the common people anymore.

And now with video:

Ilya Somin might have given us a hint at what Obama’s Administration might be centrally planning:

Interest group pressure has already played a key role in the congressional vote on the finance industry bailout, and it is likely to be equally important in structuring the massive future bailouts to come. Once Obama takes office, we are likely to see some $500 billion to 1 trillion in additional bailout spending – and that may be just for starters. Interest groups will play a major role in allocating this money, and they are already ramping up their lobbying efforts.

On the surface this sounds pretty bad, and it is.  It’s well established that central planning of an economy is folly, and these fools are arrogant enough to think they can do it.  But I am actually somewhat relieved if this is the kind of crap that Obama will be driving through Congress.  It won’t engender a large amount of public support, and will be relatively easy for successive Administrations and Congresses to undo.  The real fear (well, other than new gun control, for our purposes) is that Obama will pass a massive new entitlement program, such as national health care.  Entitlements are nearly impossible to get rid of once they are in place, so if Obama and Emanuel wants to waste taxpayer money by sending tax dollars to inefficient industries, rather than passing new entitlement, all the power to him.  It will make rallying public opposition that much easier.

Janet Napolitano gets tapped for Homeland Security.  Now Kathy Sibelius for Labor Secretary.  There are rumors of either Hillary Clinton or Bill Richardson at State.  So we could be going forward with a lot of up-and-coming Democrats manning the decks on the U.S.S. Obama.  This works out well for the Democrats if the ship turns out to be seaworthy, but it could be a godsend to the Republicans if it sinks in the harbor.

Kurt Hoffman notes Obama’s pick for the Department of Justice.  This is the position that will most affect gun owners, and his stance on gun rights doesn’t look good.  I will say, however, that if Mr. Holder can prevent his department from burning down houses with children in it, murdering women and children with sniper fire, or pointing submachine guns at 6 year olds, his record will at least be better than his Democratic predecessor.  I will hope that he adopts Obama’s “Yes we can!” attitude in terms of trying to achieve that particular goal.  Come to think of it, it wouldn’t really be that hard to top the performance of the last Republican occupant of that office either.  I would hope Mr. Holder can agree with us that these are realistic, and achievable goals.

UPDATE: Someone points out that Ruby Ridge was at the end of the Bush I presidency, and that would seem to be correct.  But I would note that it doesn’t appear Janet Reno did much housecleaning to get rid of the people who concocted the unlawful rules of engagement.

This is bound to do wonders for the economy:

Mr. Baucus would create a nationwide marketplace, a “health insurance exchange,” where people could compare and buy insurance policies. The options would include private insurance policies and a new public plan similar to Medicare. Insurers could no longer deny coverage to people who had been sick. Congress would also limit insurers’ ability to charge higher premiums because of a person’s age or prior illness.

People would have a duty to obtain coverage when affordable options were available to all through employers or through the insurance exchange. This obligation “would be enforced, possibly through the tax system,” the plan says.

Enforced through the tax system, eh?  Well, at least that’s probably constitutional.  Either way, there’s no word on how they plan to pay for what is bound to be an enormously expensive program.  To me this is the worst of both worlds.  There will be no incentive to control health care costs with a system like this, and costs will spiral out of control.

Countertop gives an update:

Folks, get ready for a knock down drag out. and remember, politics makes STRANGE bedfellows. The “shall not be infringed” crowd can go to hell. For now, no matter their past views,

Remember, this fight started over primary challenges launched against John Dingell by Nancy Pelosi because of his ability to kill gun control bills.

Frankly, no matter wjat they did in the past or do in the future, I’m treating everyone on the Dingell Whip team as a friend of the 2nd Amendment.

I’d urge your support too.

A press release from Dingell’s office follows.  I hope he comes out on top.

Stephen Green sums it up:

Libertarians/Conservatives like “Jay” and myself underestimate liberals/progressives — and what we’re guilty of is projection. But when we’re drunk and honest, we have to admit: We’re effing pikers. To restate more plainly: We don’t want power, and don’t know how to wield it. We’re pikers.

Progressives have no such qualms. Given power, they’ll take more and they’ll exercise it ruthlessly. Look at the Democrats in Congress these last two years. In not even 24 months, they’ve sunk to depths it took the Republican Congress six or more years to sink to. Their unpopularity levels are even worse than the Republicans’ in 2006. And what will happen in November? The Democrats will win seats — because they know how to wield their power to deliver the goods to please their corrupt, greedy, grabby, needy base.

I do everything I’m doing because I want the government to leave me the hell alone.  Sadly, there is no “leave me alone” constituency.  Everyone wants to put their noses into my business, and tell me what to do in one form or another.  The reason we lose politically is we have better things to do than to try to lord over others.  Sadly, that lets the ones who want to do it take power.