What happened to the Constitution?

Quicksearch

Blog Administration

Open login screen

RSS Readers

Wednesday, December 8. 2010

What happened to the Constitution?

From Powerline's Scott in a piece of the above title, mainly about Obamacare:

The economic "rights" asserted by Roosevelt in his second Bill of Rights differ and conflict with the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. They are claims on the liberty of others. If I have a right to medical care, you must have a corresponding duty to supply it. If I have a right to a decent home, you must have a duty to provide it.

The argument for the welfare state belongs in the same family as "the arguments that kings have made for enslaving the people in all ages of the world. You will find that all the arguments in favor of king-craft were of this class; they always bestrode the necks of the people, not that they wanted to do it, but because the people were better off for being ridden." That's Lincoln again.

Lincoln memorably derided the underlying principle as "the same old serpent that says you work and I eat, you toil and I will enjoy the fruits of it."

It's too late now, but I'd like to see an experiment in which one state in the US would operate under the Constitution as it is written. See how it works out. See who would go there (me, for one) and see who would flee limited government power.

Posted by The News Junkie in Our Essays, Politics at 10:56 | Comments (13) | Trackbacks (0)

Trackbacks

Trackback specific URI for this entry

No Trackbacks

Comments

Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)

The keys here are to understand that a) the Founders of this country took as a central, binding principle that liberty depended upon the security of private property, and b) the left views State provision of security of private property as an evil perpetuated by wealthy property owners as a means to maintain oppression over working and poor people and as something to be eradicated

#1 RonF on 2010-12-08 13:10 (Reply)

In three generations in the US (I'm the 4th), my family has been poor, prosperous, then working class.

I am working on the prosperous cycle.

#1.1 The NJ on 2010-12-08 13:16 (Reply)

The word "rights" as used by the Founders and by conservatives means something that God says you cannot be interfered with in obtaining or achieving such that you provide it to yourself through your own efforts, and that the State is obligated to prevent such interference.

As used by the left, a "right" is something that their consensus says you are entitled to, such that if you cannot obtain or achieve it through your own efforts the State is obligated to forcibly take resources from others and provide it to you.

In commentary on the Constitution http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2008/10/obama_2001_scrap_the_constitut.html during a radio interview on WBEZ in Chicago in 2001, then State Sen. Obama disparaged the Constitution by saying that it was essentially flawed. He called the rights defined in the Constitution as "negative rights", and introduced to his listeners the idea that the Constitution is flawed because it does not define "positive rights", which would be things that the government must provide to you. He also called the Supreme Court flawed because it had failed to interpret the Constitution and the Civil Rights laws to provide such.

Of course, what he sees as a bug we see as a feature. People dependent on the government will never be free. The fact that some people fail to provide a proper livelihood is the price of freedom. But then, freedom and liberty are not the concern of people who wish to have the populace dependent on the government.

If you ever get into an argument over rights wherein someone says that people should have a right to housing, or a job, or healthcare, ask them if that means that since it is established that we have a right to keep and bear arms, we must by that logic therefore provide poor people guns at government expense. Watch them twist and crawl to try to avoid that one.

#2 RonF on 2010-12-08 13:26 (Reply)

"If you ever get into an argument over rights wherein someone says that people should have a right to housing, or a job, or healthcare, ask them if that means that since it is established that we have a right to keep and bear arms, we must by that logic therefore provide poor people guns at government expense. Watch them twist and crawl to try to avoid that one."

Semantics are all important, aren't they?

Look at the difference between, say, an idea like "the right to work" and "the right to a job".

The former implies that no one who wants to work can be barred from doing so. The latter more or less requires employment be provided.

#3 JJM on 2010-12-08 13:45 (Reply)

I certainly don't argue with the sentiment (of operating strictly by the Constitution as we understand it and I'm sure we would have little disagreement on how to do that), however it has to be said that while the country has operated more faithfully to it before, even when it was new and presumably well understood there were things like the Alien and Sedition Acts that would clearly be unconstitutional in my understanding but was apparently not at the time - at least to Congress.

I guess my point is that as plainly as it is written, there is still room for fairly substantial disagreement and I wonder how long the idyllic Constitutional lifestyle would last in the full light of a day that includes terrorists, enemies abroad, and organized crime (add your own boogey man here).

This should not be construed to be disparaging as I would jump at the chance to live under the Constitution. There are clearly large swaths of our government that would be a joy to dissolve and "unfree" ideas to dispel or ignore.

The Holy Grail is self government and the problem is self government. We have gotten this far away from the original intent on our own. Maybe distributed power doesn't prevent eventual despotism, but only delays it...

#4 mudbug on 2010-12-08 14:05 (Reply)

Were el presidente to properly measure An Act Concerning Aliens he'd deport himself.

Don't hold yall's breath but i like the idee.

#4.1 Leag on 2010-12-08 14:34 (Reply)

I think it was Walter Williams who proposed something like this a few years ago, News Junkie. I remember him suggesting a small state (New Hampshire?) that a bunch of conservatives could move to and set up a real constitutional government.

I'm all for it too.

#5 Big___Al on 2010-12-08 14:14 (Reply)

I heard (or maybe hoped I had heard) he was thinking about Texas & Louisiana. My wife and I offered to take him to the best places to eat in New Orleans if we all moved (back) down there.

#5.1 mudbug on 2010-12-08 14:54 (Reply)

Hey, mudbug:

Texas sounds good to me right about now. If I understand correctly, their business climate has been about the best in the U.S. for awhile; they've got plenty of conservatives; a thriving gun culture; and, the older I get the less I like the cold of the northeast!

Time for Texas to secede, and show 'em how it's done!

#5.1.1 Big___Al on 2010-12-08 16:13 (Reply)

I believe Texas is the only (or one of the few) states that has actually gained jobs since 2009. At worst, it has only lost a small number. It is very business friendly. It has a problem with illegals, but they, like AZ, have the right attitude about it. I would have to live in east Texas (but not in Houston even though my sister in law, whom I love, lives there) or San Antonio (where I also have friends). Austin is very nice. I think west Texas might be an acquired taste.

I certainly favor the right to secede - in fact I don't know why there is a question about the right to secede - but practically, it has to be a large regional movement to be successful and obviously people have to be REALLY pissed off. I'm frustrated enough with the way things have been going in the last forty years that I'd be for it, but I think it's a little early to seriously talk about that (though I know it is seriously talked about).

#5.1.1.1 mudbug on 2010-12-08 16:29 (Reply)

Yeah, forgot about them there illegals. But Texas IS a big region, right? And I think if we (they) were free to police the borders as is necessary, they'd get 'er done.

I don't exactly remember Williams' plan, so this little twist on it I have might actually be stolen from him:

What if Texas plainly said, "We're seceding as a grand experiment, to test whether the original constitution and founding ideals make us more free, safe and prosperous. We're confident it will work beyond our wildest dreams. And when it does, we'll be glad to join back up with the United States and share our prosperity with you... IF y'all agree to the same model of government."

(One can dream, right?)

#5.1.1.1.1 Big___Al on 2010-12-08 17:54 (Reply)

Hi Big Al,

It's a nice dream... :-)

#5.1.1.1.1.1 mudbug on 2010-12-08 18:10 (Reply)

Oops, I might have stole that idea from News Junkie's last paragraph above! hehe...

But I think it's been bouncing around in my or others' heads for awhile.

#6 Big___Al on 2010-12-08 18:01 (Reply)

Add Comment

Name
Email	(Your e-mail will not show in your comment)
Homepage
In reply to
Comment	By commenting on this site you agree to the site rules listed here. Email addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for email notifications. Quick reference guide: [i] italics [/i], [b] bold [/b], [u] underline [/u], [url] (web address) [/url]. More tips here. Enclosing asterisks marks text as bold (word), underscore are made via _word_. E-Mail addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for E-Mail notifications. To prevent automated Bots from commentspamming, please enter the string you see in the image below in the appropriate input box. Your comment will only be submitted if the strings match. Please ensure that your browser supports and accepts cookies, or your comment cannot be verified correctly. Enter the string from the spam-prevention image above: BBCode format allowed
	Remember Information? Subscribe to this entry

Maggie's Farm

Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page

Categories

Quicksearch

Links

Blog Administration

RSS Readers

Wednesday, December 8. 2010

What happened to the Constitution?