The Anarchy of Constitutionalism (Why Liberty is Unsustainable)

First off, at the very basis of Constitutionalism there are two things which most people cannot stand (and indeed have been trained and taught not to stand):

Let me explain these points, in their more complex forms; starting with the second and then moving into the first; authority and power are inextricably linked, though not in the physical-sense, more on the philosophical and moral levels, for it is by authority that virtually all societies are founded [and certainly in all hierarchical organizations] by a leader and people recognize authority by the position of that leader. This gives rise to the mistaken assumption that it is the position which gives the leader their authority; it is not the mere position that gives a leader authority… it is the mere fact that the people are following him that makes him a leader and it is in the act of following that the people create a position for the leader. The concept of a Constitution alters this natural pattern slightly: the constitution is the formal creation of these position[s] of power that leaders would naturally fill “in the wild” and limits the authority of the position to some specifically delineated section. This means that there are valid areas for the exercise of power from that position and invalid areas.

Now, you may think this is all good; but let me remind you of human nature: the one in such a position of power will push against the edges and boundaries of his limited legitimate area in an attempt to expand it, while one not in a position of authority will tend to assume that the power & authority comes from the position (rather than the position being made by authority). It is here where words actually meaning things would scare you: because if words were absolute then the invalid actions of those in power (those actions which strain on the borders of what is dictated by the constitution) would become too obvious and counter the model of authority in your head, so you soothe your own soul by insisting that words are only words and nothing to be concerned over… but even this self-delusion needs help; this is where those in authority tell you that it’s OK because they’re here to comfort you and that this is the way things are supposed to be which you swallow whole like a nursing child.

But if the Constitution was the source of authority, its words meaning specific things, delineating the roles of these positions of authority then things would be utter chaos; the meaningless words crystalizing into clear forms and straight lines giving clear and definite areas to these positions of authority then things instantly change.

For example, if words mean things, then the oath the Supreme Court’s Justices say bears some investigation:

Furthermore; we say that if the document of the Constitution means whatever the Supreme Court, as a whole, says then consider this: any dissenting opinion published by a supreme Court Justice could be considered sedition; it is an opinion contrary to the constitution by our current definition… but even furthermore, no Supreme Court decision could EVER validly be based on a previously dissenting opinion because [by definition] that opinion id contrary to the constitution.

This means that for a Constitutionalist’s worldview to have any consistency the Supreme Court itself is bound by the Constitution. This is further supported by the separation of the powers of the state into distinct branches; it is the Legislature’s job to create and change laws, not that of the Judiciary!

Notice that I did not say repeal laws, that is because, logically speaking any mere law or rule or regulation that is contrary to the Constitution is null and void; and it is the duty of all the branches to see that none of their own policies or their coequals’s policies are contrary to the constitution – so any portion of the government should, in theory, be able to say “STOP! I don’t think this is Constitutional.”

But the Judiciary isn’t the only place that would be intimately impacted, “to their disadvantage” people would say, if we were to realize the true impact of this ‘new’ view of authority and words. Take the military, for instance the Oath of Enlistment for the National Guard is as follows:

The National Guard oaths are supersets of those of the regular army; so, in dealing with all their elements we deal with those smaller sets’s as well.

Notice, first off, that the person taking either oath has as the “primary clause’ that he will support and defend the *Constitution* of the United States [and then the State]… acknowledging the constitutions as the source of the authority of the state means that, under the military-mindset, if the state acts contrary to the constitution it is exactly equivalent to someone publicly refusing orders from their superior-officer, nothing less that absolute insubordination!

Secondly, we notice that the oath is for allegiance to the Constitution; not to the state! In so far as this oath is concerned, even the state’s non-existence would not impact that allegiance.

Third, there comes the “orders of the President and the Governor;” it is interesting to note that the oath for officers of the regular army or federal reserves do not contain this clause. The relatively late appearance of any mention of the Commander in Chief [the governor when not on federal duty, otherwise the president] illustrate exactly how low of a precedence *ANY* sort of consideration for a particular person is under a Constitutionalist mindset; if it [the military organization] were able to function without a Commander in Chief I daresay that the militaries would be autonomous and virtually unanswerable to the State!

>So you would compare the Constitution as a cage for rats?

The Constitution *is* supposed to be a cage; though it is not the people who are to be bound therein: it is the government. Thomas Jefferson said this of the Constitution: “In questions of power, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution.”

If the Constitution says what the government says, then how is it not a cage? (That is, if you let your opponent define the rules of your debate/battle/game then you are virtually sure to lose; the only way you might win is if your opponent becomes arrogant and puts up a rule that allows you to win — even then, you should expect him to chance the rules in midstream.)

>Using that analogy, I would be more concerned about the DemonRATs who go outside the Constitution.

And not the Republicans as well? How inconsistent of you.

The “outside” of the cage, in the analogy, is Liberty & Freedom: I am saying that [right now] the average American person does not actually want Liberty/Freedom because it is utterly alien to his realm of experience. Consider this: public schools have trained the children of this nation, for the past several generations two things:
— That the ‘authority’ can dictate to you how and when to do any particular thing.
— that ‘authority’ comes from the *position* [and that no-one who does not qualified can rise to such a position; Obama is a GREAT counter-example].

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.