The Danger of a Corrupted Constitution

History Rhymes. Our colonial ancestors did not revolt against an awful British Constitution. On the contrary, they admired what was to that time, “that noblest improvement of human reason.” There was no shortage of admiration for the British system of Commons, Lords and King, which blended so well the Aristotelian forms of republic, aristocracy and monarchy. Through the balance of the British Constitution, its citizens were the freest on earth. Even members of the Stamp Act Congress gloried in “having been born under the most perfect form of government.” Arch Anti-Federalist Patrick Henry, during the Virginia debates over ratification of the Constitution, expressed high regard for that which we discarded in 1776.

No, our complaints were over corruption of that brilliant system. The marvelous mixture of the English constitution was dependent on what American Whigs believed, “the three distinct powers, or bodies” of the legislature being entirely independent of each other. But as Whigs interpreted the events of the 18th century, the Crown had been able to evade the restrictions of the revolutionary settlement of the Glorious Revolution of 1688, and had “found means to corrupt the other branches of the constitution from within.

Throughout the 18th century, the Crown slyly avoided the blunt and clumsy instrument of the veto over Parliamentary bills, and instead resorted to influencing the electoral process and members of Parliament in order to achieve its treacherous ends. It appeared to those who clung to the original principles of the constitution and the growing tradition of separation of powers that the Crown, in its painful efforts to build majorities through borough-mongering and the distribution of patronage, was in fact bribing its way into tyranny. Sound familiar?

“It is upon this principle,” Americans concluded, “that the King of Great Britain is absolute, for though he doth not act without the Parliament, by places, pensions, honors and promises, he obtains the sanction of the Parliament for doing as he pleases. The ancient form is preserved, but the spirit of the constitution is evaporated.”

By the 1760s this took the form in America of bold attempts by the Crown to subvert our elected Assemblies. Members were offered government jobs by Royal Governors. These often required little effort, but paid well, were secure and offered societal status. Of course, one’s employment was dependant upon voting the right way. Judges were not immune, for a Justice of the South Carolina Supreme Court found his place through the influence of a Lord’s mistress.

The Crown was clearly bent on changing American society. Men everywhere sought ministerial jobs and favors. Especially in cities, an artificial inter-colonial aristocracy which emerged from honors bestowed by the Crown was entrenching itself, consolidating and setting itself apart from the mass of American yeomen.

Royal officials on both sides of the Atlantic were concerned with the instability of American society. They determined that what was needed was strengthening of the aristocratic element, those with a few distinctions so as to maintain proper subordination of rank and civil discipline. Various proposals were made, among which were establishment in America of a Nobility appointed by the King for life.

Americans disagreed. We fast felt ourselves sliding into decay and certain tyranny. In order to save our liberties, our rights as Englishmen, a clean break from Great Britain was necessary.

Fast forward to 2012. Are we not similarly living under a wonderful but corrupted beauty, the Constitution of the United States?

How many clauses and entire amendments have been effectively excised from it? Is the best path to financial security through private enterprise or government “service?” Are we not subject to laws in the form of regulations outside of our control through the legislative process? Can property owners push a spade into the earth without fear an armed federal agent will harass them? Do our politicians through the law, encourage citizen toward virtuous living which strengthens society and binds us together, or do they foment divisions among us? How many millions have been bought to support the regime through corrupting money handouts? Have our Senators become nothing but pompous Aristocrats, lacking only the prefix of “Lord,” who assume infinite wisdom to arrange and direct every aspect of our lives? Does our President perform duties as per the Constitution or assume the powers of a despot?

In colonial times the judiciary was an appendage of the Crown and served purely at the pleasure of the King. Needless to say, the judges defended both their jobs and the prerogatives of their Sovereign, the King of England. Our judiciary, serving for life, was made independent of the Executive and Congress. We The People, via the Constitution are the Sovereigns. But, whose prerogatives does our exalted Supreme Court protect? We, the Sovereigns, or the national government?

The organic Tea Party movement opposes our modern day oppressors in general and the tyrannical goals of Obama and the Democrat Party in particular. Like our ancestors, we seek to end the corruption of our Constitution and renew its guarantees. Our Founders listed twenty seven charges against a corrupt George III of England. Many of the same apply today. The difference between then and now, is that then, we had the courage to act.

All besides the point. After James II was overthrown, the monarch reigned but did not rule. However, the power of the monarch remained, now centered in, as Hansard put it, The Estates-general of Great Britain and Ireland, which consisted formally of Church, king, Lords and Commons.” It was this concentrated power that the colonies rebelled against, and it is concentrated power that the Tea Party opposes. The Establishment really does want to be an “Establishment,” one like that which ruled in Great Britain in 1776.

Pretty ironic considering that the US Federal Gov’t has more power over the states than the the Crown ever had over the largely self-governing American colonies...

This has been true since the Civil War. One reason why the Civil War Amendments were long not enforced was that potentially they in effect made the States subordinate to the Federal Courts. So it began with the Court restricting State power over the railroads and other corporations thru the Commerce Clause and the Contract Clause. Once the progressives too charge, then other powers were taken away from the States. Death by a thousand cuts. Dred Scott--to protect slavery --restricted the power of the states to protect its inhabitants. Showing that the war was not about state’s rights within the Constitution but about the states as sovereign entities. Hence the terms of the Confederate Constitution.

Incidentally, and this comes off the top of my head, a truly “Tea Party” change in government would entail a new Judiciary Act that would radically change the jurisdiction/make-up of the Federal Courts. This is not going to happen, because there are too many lawyers in politics, and nothing horrifies them than the thought that they might have to adjust to a new way of doing things and create a whole new professional network. They don’t mind letting bureaucrats set impossible new standards for truck engines, but the very idea of producing an efficient legal system just makes them wet their pants.

And how are you going to get the many lawyers in Congress to go along with this? The bishops who supported Henry VIII’s usurpation of the rights of the pope had a very personal, even professional interest in going along with the king. What incentive could we offer to the lawyers? Jefferson was trained in the law but quit his practice at 31. So he had no brief for lawyers. Who among out leaders today has the same view?

And how are you going to get the many lawyers in Congress to go along with this?

Hm, seems like it might be rather easy if another 2,000+ page, "we have to pass it to find out what's in it" type bill wouldn't mind the addition of a single page, no?

The bishops who supported Henry VIII’s usurpation of the rights of the pope had a very personal, even professional interest in going along with the king. What incentive could we offer to the lawyers?

Not having them hanged and/or shot. {It is an incentive.} -- Though that's likely a different implementation track.

Jefferson was trained in the law but quit his practice at 31. So he had no brief for lawyers. Who among out leaders today has the same view?

What do you mean "had no brief for lawyers"?

Kind of pun, but I meant, of course, he didn’t like the business. If you recall that while the physicians and the non-Anglican preachers were solidly behind the Revolution, the lawyers were split down the middle, waiting to see who won.

T’anks. And I hear that some retired Army Col.and professor has prepared a program to train our Military to defend against a mythical citizens group with the Tea Party values: Who take over a town and seek to expand their territory- the Mayor calls the Governor from his house imprisonment, the Gov.
calls on the Military because he feels helpless against these “citizens” reminds me of similar reports read elsewhere.

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.