This post continues a thread from MIRACLE OF DEMOCRACY? – PART 1, and it seeks an answer to a question. 200 years ago We the People agreed to abide by the restraints incorporated in The United States Constitution. Do we still honor those restraints? Do we still insist that our leaders keep their oath to support and defend the Constitution?
When we look at what our government does and compare that to The United States Constitution, can any of us honestly say we now abide by the Constitution? Consider these examples. Where does our Constitution authorize:
- Social Security, a government-run retirement system?
- Obamacare, a system that would force each of us to by government approved health insurance?
- The Department of Education, an institution spends 10’s of billions and seeks to dominate our nation’s educational institutions?
- Fannie Mae and other government-run loan programs?
- Government-run unemployment insurance?
- Government-run flood insurance?
- Food Stamps and other welfare programs?
- And so many other programs unmentioned or even hinted at in our Constitution?
Try asking an establishment politician about constitutional authorization. Will you get a straight answer? Not likely. Instead, the majority of these politicians will question your right to question the need for their precious programs. And they will pity YOUR selfishness. At best, to justify breaking their oath to support and defend the Constitution, they will point to the history and the step-by-step process that has brought us to the brink of a Socialist Utopia. Then, if you are unwilling to accept this incredible nonsense, they will say YOU just don’t understand.
The most devoted to the cause will explain the “miracle of democracy.” Our Constitution is like Pinocchio. It is an old and wrinkly paper to brought to life. Somehow history made our Constitution a “living Constitution,” and YOU just don’t understand. YOU just don’t know the case law. Step by step judges have expanded the meaning of the words and phrases in the “living Constitution.” Thus, judges have made it it possible for that old and wrinkly paper to survive into the modern age. Therefore, we can name almost any department, and we must look up “case law” to find an excuse for it.
Who invented the expression “living Constitution”? To find out, please read The Living Constitution vs. Original Public Meaning by Clayton E. Cramer. Each of us must understand the extent to which this concept can be used corrupt our Law. For example, with a “living Constitution,” we now have a backdoor way to amend the Constitution. The President and Congress just make a treaty. How can that be good idea? Why would we want to trust the people who lead us that much?
Was the Constitution intended to be that vague? No. Read the The Federalist Papers and The Anti-Federalist Papers. Neither the proponents or the opponents of the Constitution wanted a “living Constitution,” but too many of our judges and legislators have both expressed the opinion and demonstrated their belief that the original intent is unimportant.
What are our leaders thinking? We cannot read each other’s minds, but perhaps we can recognize the problem. At one time or another, we have all rationalized. Imagine if you caught a burglar in your house. You would be angry that he had tried to rob you, but most likely the burglar would just feel angry about being caught. He believes he has a right to rob you, a right justified by life’s unfairness and his superior virtues. If he cared, he could explain step-by-step all the events that led to him being in your house. In fact, he would be angry with you for not understanding that he has every right to rob you and fill his pocketbook with your money.
Now put yourself in the place of the burglar. Do you collect money from our government? Pick your favorite social/welfare program. Are you the recipient of an “entitlement” or the employee of a social/welfare agency? Don’t you feel you justly have a right to the “government’s money”? Yet odds are that you collected that money only because some burglarizing politicians robbed a taxpayer named Peter to pay you, a fellow with the alias of Paul.
Because we have never seriously examined the ethics of government social/welfare programs, we have a mess, a huge mess. WE have elected burglars to run our government, people who would have us believe that it is good for them to rob us (and for us to rob each other).
What can we do? Even if it take decades, we must deconstruct our huge, bloated government and undo the sordid mess.