Right-Wing Progressivism in the U.S. (Must End!)

Vanity | 2010-04-30 | U.B.S.O.T.O.S.

[UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide]

I posted this first to the latest Glenn Beck thread. I think it embodies what Glenn is talking about in a concentrated summary and deserves notice, IMHO:

A right-wing progressive can be defined as one who joins with the left in promoting the all-encompassing all-powerful Commerce Clause in order to push a social "conservative" or religious agenda, primarily today in the federal War on Drugs. (Right-wing Progressivism predates left-wing Progressivism in the alcohol temperance movement of the 1870s and also in the premature ending of Reconstruction and Plessy v. Ferguson institutional and statute-enforced segregation.) The right has been willing to help the left dine out on our substance in tyrannizing and regulating all aspects of our lives in return for the crumb of a federal war on vices, obscenity, violating the 1st Amendmend's "no law", and drugs, having failed miserably with alcohol, perverting the meaning of "interstate" commerce in order to avoid another Prohibition Amendment debacle.

Okay, what has happened to "right-wing progressivism" since the 1930's New Deal right-left coalition? The left has pushed right-wing progressives into smaller and smaller corners, while still able to count on their support for big government.

The right lost almost all control of freedom of association in the 1950s and 1960s when forced segregation, which many were happy with, became forced integration and forced busing. These are two sides of the same big government coin. Had the left been satisfied with de-institutionalizing segregation, that would have been the small-government ideal. But promotion of desegregation became a tool of leftist state control as segregation had been a tool of right-wing control.

On obscenity, the Right has lost almost all control of adult pornography except in public places and public broadcast of the most explicit material. They lost from the 60s to the 90s on public broadcast of the seven dirty words, though they recently regained that. But where is the 1st Amendment authority for that in "no law"?

On drugs, the "Right" lost on alcohol in 1933. In the last decade, the Right's control on marijuana has begun to slip. Soon, only "hard drugs" will be illegal IF that is enough to keep the social right wing in the big government coalition or if indeed the right is still needed in that coalition.

The right did have good reasons for collaborating with the left in federalization. State-by-state temperance laws had failed to get the degree of control over alcohol that the religious right sought because state borders are porous. What was illegal in one state was easily carried to another by individuals and black marketeers. Lax broadcast standards in one state would let language and views bleed over into stricter states. Rather than taking the lengthy process of persuading adjacent jurisdictions, the right opted for the easy answer of federal standards. But the Supreme Court from 1900 to 1920 correctly ruled such efforts beyond the scope of federal power. The 18th Amendment seemed to be the solution for alcohol. But when that promoted violent crime and disrespect for the law, the right surrendered on alcohol and retreated to federal control on issues and values on which there was general public agreement. On of those was marijuana. And the left was able to get the right to join the New Deal left to forge a coalition for big government culminating in the Wickard v. Filburn decision. Then the left set about undermining those values with the goal of one day obtaining sole control of big government power with a majority able to do without a coalition with the right.

The federalizing of religion-based legalistic control on these issues has gradually turned against the right in the left's push for federal exclusion of religion which reaches state and local levels through unconstitutioinal federal funding, mandates and regulation. The right needs to understand that federalizing these issues was always going to be temporary and self-defeating, diverting them from true efforts at persuasion and evangelization for the easy shortcut of coercion while the left used those tools to evermore shrink the right.

The only solution lies in the right pulling the rug from under the left while it may still have the numbers to do so. The right must leave the big government coalition, even if that means setbacks on individual issues. With a collapse of big government, the right must then set about persuading on its issues at the local level. And the right needs to understand that some people are going to be sinners and stop trying to convert by coercion at any level where there is not an immediate and direct threat to life, liberty or the pursuit of happiness.

[UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide]

I believe the “General Welfare” clause was intended as an additional limit on the power of Congress, that is, they were not being empowered to exercise those enumerated powers arbitrarily or in any way contrary to the general welfare or to promote other than general welfare as opposed to specific interests. We have strayed far.

[UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide]

I’ll vote for you if you vote for me.

We’ll have bonfires at the Whitehouse, the Supreme Court,
Capitol Hill and a BIG one at the United Nations building.

And rescue America from the National Archive.

:-)

[SaraJohnson]

Maybe we should use paper shredders so as not to scare anyone. LOL

[Oceander]

It's useful to look at the actual "general welfare" clause of the Constitution. The first few clauses of Art. I, sec. 8 read as follows:

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;

When you look at it this way, it becomes apparent that the first clause is actually composed of two subclauses, first, the prefatory clause that applies to all of the granted powers - the clause "The Congress shall have power" - and second, the first enumerated power the Constitution grants to Congress.

That means that the phrase:

to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

must be read as one, distinct enumerated power, and not part of the initial, prefatory, clause that starts the list of enumerated powers. Read that way, Art. I, sec. 8, cl. 1, merely states that Congress may impose taxes in order to pay for the debts of the federal government and to pay for the common defense and those matters that fall under the rubric of the "general welfare" of the U.S.

In other words, the only thing the federal government can do, with respect to something that is considered part of the "general welfare" but which is not provided for in any of the other enumerated powers, is to spend monies to "provide for" those matters, and impose taxes for the purpose of obtaining those monies.

What the liberals have done is to take the phrase "provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States" completely out of context and to treat it as a wholly separate, distinct grant of power, on a par with the enumerated powers contained in clauses 2 through 18 of Art. I, sec. 8.

In other words, what liberals are doing - and they're doing it in bad faith because they are too smart, and there are too many lawyers amongst them, for them to pretend otherwise - is to treat the first clause of Art. I, sec. 8, as providing for two separate, distinct powers - (1) the power to tax, and (2) the power to provide for the general welfare. In order to accomplish that, they have necessarily had to secretly rewrite the first clause of Art. I, sec. 8 as if it read like this:

The Congress shall have power:

(a) to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, and

(b) to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but

(c) all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

If Art. I, sec. 8, cl. 1 were all we had, that might be a plausible reading of it - although it would not be the best reading of it - however, when read within the context of the whole of Art. I, sec. 8, it becomes very difficult to maintain that as a plausible reading of cl. 1. First off, it necessarily entails that the phrase "all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States" also be given weight as a separate, distinct grant of an enumerated power, on a par with the other 17 clauses of sec. 8, but that is simply nonsense because the phrase "all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States" standing by itself is not a grant of power, it is a dependent limitation upon some other grant of power. As such, reading cl. 1 the way liberals would like to pretend it should be read violates one of the basic, fundamental canons of statutory construction that one must always avoid any interpretation of statutory language that requires one to treat the language given in a less logical manner than is available under other interpretations (to very, very broadly paraphrase the canon of construction I am thinking of). Furthermore, it renders cl. 1 inconsistent with cl. 12 which also contains a "but" subclause that qualifies the language of cl. 12 itself that precedes the word "but."

Basically, given that the "general welfare" clause appears as a second dependent subclause in cl. 1, the better interpretation is that it is qualified by the subject-matter of the rest of cl. 1, and that therefore it merely empowers Congress to spend monies to "provide for the general welfare" and it does not constitute a free-standing grant of power to Congress to "provide for the general welfare" in whatever manner Congress sees fit, in particular through compulsory regulations and edicts.

[bamahead]

Amen!



Libertarian ping! Click here to get added or here to be removed or post a message here!
View past Libertarian pings here

[Ken H]

Scalia endorsed the New Deal Commerce Clause, and he did not limit it to drugs:

...the authority to enact laws necessary and proper for the regulation of interstate commerce is not limited to laws governing intrastate activities that substantially affect interstate commerce. Where necessary to make a regulation of interstate commerce effective, Congress may regulate even those intrastate activities that do not themselves substantially affect interstate commerce.

Justice Scalia, concurring in Raich, 6 June 2005.

[Still Thinking]

But promotion of desegregation became a tool of leftist state control as segregation had been a tool of right-wing control.Dude! You're buying into the left's narrative. Check your history. The segregationists were Democrats, and between that fact and hatred of Lincoln, there was the "solid South", dependably Democrat in national elections. I mean think about it. Who are the racists now? Democrats. Who would it stand to reason were the racists then? Democrats.

[Ken H]

As a Social Conservative, I oppose drugs — not based on the ICC, but on a myraid of other legal (and to me more importantly MORAL) reasons.

You may not base your support for federal prohibition on the New Deal Commerce Clause, but fedgov certainly does. If you support that policy, you cannot escape responsibility for supporting a violation of the Constitution.

I do not think that ONE example — the "drug wars" — is grounds to deny that three of our Supreme Court Justices are not Originalists.

As I said earlier, Scalia's opinion in Raich was not confined to the war on drugs; he endorsed Wickard. One legal heavy hitter is citing Scalia to claim Obamacare will survive a constitutional challenge. Charles Fried, US Solicitor General 1985-1989 and Harvard Law professor was on Greta Van Susteren, 04/14/2010:

______________________________________

FRIED: The statute which I have front of me, I bothered to read it, says that the health insurance industry is an $854 billion dollar industry. That sounds like commerce.

The Supreme Court just five years ago with Justice Scalia in the majority said that it is all right under the Commerce Clause to make it illegal for California for residents in California to grow pot for their own use, because that has affect on interstate commerce.

Well, if that has affect on interstate commerce, what happens in an $854 billion national industry certainly does.

-snip-

FRIED: I daresay that, because I looked at that 2005 lawsuit about the pot in California. If somebody growing pot in their basement is interstate commerce and Scalia said so, I don't know where you are going to get five votes the other way.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,591103,00.html

[Still Thinking]

You may not base your support for federal prohibition on the New Deal Commerce Clause, but fedgov certainly does. If you support that policy, you cannot escape responsibility for supporting a violation of the Constitution.

Exactly. The Commerce Clause isn't so much the reason for the drug war as it is the legal excuse for the feds to engage in it (if their interpretation were correct).

[spintreebob]

Currently the biggest mistake is demanding a big gubmint solution to immigration. Granted immigration presents some problems. What makes any conservative think that big gubmint is the solution?

National ID card?
Telling private employers whom they can and cannot hire?
Eminent Domain to build border stations ... in Vermont?

Be careful what you wish for.

[spintreebob]

A libertarian progressive would be one who practices personal wealth distribution without forcing it on others.

[patriot preacher]

Fried is just ONE “Legal Heavey Hitter.” I think he might be surprised by Scalia. But then, I could be wrong — and he — perhaps you — could be right. The Justices on the Supreme Court tend to be removed from both reality and Constitutional Responsibility after a while on the bench. I hope I’m right about Scalia though...

As to my opposition to drugs — you make one fatal assumption — that I base my opposition wholly or solely on FEDERAL GOVERNMENT grounds. In fact, I think the several States in and of themselves WITHOUT the agency of the Federal Government could each make a sound case for fighting their own “drug wars.” But quite apart from it “Commerce Clause,” a national security case could easily and Constitutionally be made to fight against the cartels of Mexico, Central and South America and the Caribbean, and those with whom they have allied themselves. Consider the border in Arizona right now...Think about towns just across the border from Texas, like Nuevo Laredo or cuidad Juarez.

Spending billions on crimes, treatment, wasting resources, preoccupation with those who would do us harm, pollute and kill our children and grow rich with out cash while doing so — I find that a “clear and present danger” for a Constitutional declaration of war. But if the Feds, or even a majority of States wouldn’t do it, I think individual States could — and should be allowed to. If the Feds won’t help, they ought to stay out of the way.

[Ken H]

Spending billions on crimes, treatment, wasting resources, preoccupation with those who would do us harm, pollute and kill our children and grow rich with out cash while doing so — I find that a "clear and present danger" for a Constitutional declaration of war.

Once again, YOU may find it such, but fedgov does not. In their eyes this is a Commerce Clause issue and has been so since the drug war began. You simply cannot escape responsibility for supporting the New Deal Commerce Clause. It is a display of contempt for the Constitution whether or not you wish to acknowledge it.

But if the Feds, or even a majority of States wouldn't do it, I think individual States could — and should be allowed to. If the Feds won't help, they ought to stay out of the way.

The feds should act in accordance with original understanding and let the states set their own intrastate drug policies.

Let me ask this... Rasmussen has the California ballot initiative to tax and regulate marijuana ahead by 49%-38%. Suppose it is passed by CA voters. Would you support CA's prerogative under the Tenth Amendment to enact such a program without fedgov interference? Or, would you support fedgov shutting it down under authority of the Commerce Clause?

[patriot preacher]

I’ll answer you’re last question first — if California passed a law legalizing & regulating marijuana, I would be ALL for it — with TWO Caveats: (1) That the FedGov would not then FORCE all the rest of the States to do the same or RECOGNIZE as “legal” California’s laws in their courts (as in the case of gay marriage and other issues), and (2) as long as the rest of the States didn’t have to foot the bill when ALL of the potheads moved en masse to California and went on their welfare roles, or drug dependency lists, or whatever they created to supply them with their grade a Columbian leaf — and if you don’t think that would happen, you done been tokin.’

As to your assumption that, because I support a drug war I MUST then support the ICC — are you kidding?! I simply see drugs as a national security threat. These are Constitutional questions, but the ICC need never come up in confronting enemies foreign and domestic. Even the Preamble of the Constitution clearly delineates one of the major roles of the FedGov is to “provide for the common defense.” As I said, there is not a clearer case to be made than the one that foreign drug producing and supplying cartels and those with whom they have allied themselves (including Communists, and now Islamofascists) are our enemies and we should declare war on them. NO ICC crap necessary. We don’t have to “invent” a reason to go to war with these people. They hate us and seek our destruction by any means necessary. That’s war.

[Ken H]

...if California passed a law legalizing & regulating marijuana, I would be ALL for it — with TWO Caveats:

Suppose a politician says, "I support the Second Amendment, but with TWO Caveats...". Would you think that person was a principled supporter of the Second Amendment and the RKBA? If you believe the originalist position is to honor the Tenth Amendment, then attaching caveats is showing a degree of contempt, IMO.

As to your assumption that, because I support a drug war I MUST then support the ICC — are you kidding?!

Look, I agree that Congress has authority take on the cartels with deadly force and/or close the border. It has sovereign power over such things.

Congress has gone beyond that in imposing a nationwide prohibition under the New Deal or Wickard Commerce Clause. Is it your position that Congress is acting in accordance with original understanding in this regard?

[patriot preacher]

Again, answering your second question first, the simpleanswer is NO, Congress is NOT acting in the original understanding. I think there are some complexities there, but essentially, there are few disagreements there.

With regard to your comparison between drugs and guns — again, are you freaking kidding?! The 2nd Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear arms. It is essential to liberty. There IS no right to keep and use recreational drugs! No matter WHAT penumbra you look under in the Constitution! I show no contempt (I find that mildly insulting) for the Constitution in saying that it does not protect the “right” of individual criminals or groups of enemies both foreign and domestic to destroy the nation and the several states both morally, physically and economically. That’s patently absurd.

[Ken H]

With regard to your comparison between drugs and guns — again, are you freaking kidding?! The 2nd Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear arms. It is essential to liberty. There IS no right to keep and use recreational drugs! No matter WHAT penumbra you look under in the Constitution!

Reread what I wrote. I did not compare the RKBA to a right to keep and use drugs. I compared support for Amendment II to support for Amendment X. Support for Amendment X means the states should have the choice regarding intrastate drug policies, not that they must legalize.

If fedgov passed a law requiring states to legalize marijuana, then that would be just as much a violation of Amendment X as are the current laws which impose national prohibition. Attaching conditions to one's support for either of the amendments is a display of contempt, IMO.

[patriot preacher]

Again, I don’t see how we disagree to any great degree. The Constitution as originally constructed limite the FedGov. States, in that case, would have been free to set their own guidelines regarding arms (though no SANE State would have forbidden them in the 18th or 19th centuries — and I would argue that’s even more true today).

All things being equal, the same would be true for recreational drugs. But all things are not equal. First, as I mentioned, there is no national security imperative nor personal security use for recreational drugs as there is with RTKB. Second, if this is one of the rights NOT enumerated in the Tenth Amendment (an intellectual argument in itself I have no problem with), then certainly the FedGov COULD NOT intervene whether a state banned usage or freely permitted it. If only it were that “simple.”

It’s not. First, the 14th Amendment stood the Constitution on it’s head, applying all the restrictions imposed on the FedGov on all the State Governments AND in fact now on even private corporations, and even individuals, and it’s even been used to make the Federal Courts the ARBITERS of who is and is not entitled to those rights. It’s a perversion of the document, and a usurpation of the highest order that our Founders would be appalled at, and would likely have rebelled against. This being the case, NOTHING the State chooses to do WILL escape Federal scrutiny. Anything they choose to do MUST be approved by funded by, and/or supported by Washignton.

The only way to right our nation is if the States stand up to Washington and refuse to recognize their jurisdiction and right to rule in such a manner. Will it happen? Short of violence? Rebellion?...

Back to the original question — Even if the FedGov could neither impose nor forbid drug policy on a given state, so long as I in South Carolina would NOT have to PAY taxes that would then be used to support the drug habits of high Californians, or bail them out when they went bust — ok. Under the current system, that’s EXACTLY what we’re doing. I would refuse to do that in the NAME of “Constitutional Freedom” too.

You wanna snort coke, shoot heroin or smoke pot all day long and California says ok, move out there. Live in the trees, bathe in the creeks, eat in the soup kitchens and buy from the Government run suppliers. But don’t look to ME (or to ME THRU the auspices of Washington DC) to pay for rehab, rent you a crash pad, scoop you up off the street, reimburse all your victims and their families, and pay your burial costs. My response would be, “you want “laissez-faire” buddy, you got it.

One common sense lesson I learned from my Dad years ago — and he is a man who LOVES this nation and the Constitution. If you ask for MY money, I’m gonna call the shots. Right now, Greece wants European money with no strings — it doesn’t work that way. California wants a Federal bailout with no strings — sorry, it doesn’t work that way. WASHINGTON wants our money and STILL wants to tell us what to do — they got it exactly BACKWARDS. The people PAYING all the taxes and FOOTING all the bills are the ones who call the shots — NOT the ones with no skin in the game.

Sorry if you think I am displaying “contempt” for the Constitution. I can only assure you, I am not. If you don’t agree, well, then, we will disagree. I am just a bit tired of people telling me that because I insist upon RESPONSIBILITY that I infringe upon someone elses “rights,” yet when I am RESPONSIBLE, I have even more rights taken away from me, and less left to me to enjoy the few rights I have left. SOmetime, the tide has to turn back in favor of the 53% of us who DO pay the taxes and work out butts off to foot the bill for the illegals, the lazy bums and the government employees, politicians and societal deadweight that depend on US and yet demands even more FROM us.

Okay — rant officially over :-)

[Ken H]

Your rant does nothing to change the fact that you are supporting the New Deal Commerce Clause to trample the Tenth Amendment. That is constitutional contempt.

[patriot preacher]

I don’t support the “New Deal Commerce Clause.” I DO believe in the Tenth Amendment. :-) How’s that for a clear, plain, simple, straightforward statement? No contempt there at all.