The perils of constitution-worship

Economist ^ | 23 Sep 2010 | Economist

[Billthedrill]

"Constitutional idolatry" is sneering mockery, not sober analysis. In fact, there is nothing in the least wrong with insisting that the social contract that forms the political foundation of the country be adhered to. Adhering to an agreement does not constitute worship.

The author's case, if it might be flattered by the term, is a sad example of how far down the Economist has fallen in terms of editorial standards. The same pen that mocks those wishing to live up to an agreement writes the silliest nonsense as if it were received wisdom, with no argument or evidence in support. For example:

But this is a case that needs to be made and remade from first principles in every political generation...

Really? Why is that? Does the author really believe that the basis of a country's legal code and governmental structure needs to be reinvented each generation from first principles? What on earth for? And who says so?

The reply is silence, which is probably a mercy. Clearly the author has very little familiarity either with the Constitution or the numerous arguments that (1) we have strayed from the plan, and (2) that returning to it might serve the country's interests. For example, why do we have a Department of Labor and a Department of Commerce under the Executive when Article I states that those interests are properly under the Legislative? Why has that basic guarantee of no search without a specific warrant been simply disregarded? These are perfectly legitimate questions, not "worship", and if the author thinks that they may be evaded by reinventing the entire agreement once a generation, he or she badly needs to reconsider.

On the contrary, a return to a form of government described by the Constitution is the very key to reduction of the overall size of government. Where government has exceeded its Constitutional mandate, it may be cut. We already have a plan, a pattern, an agreement, and to insist that it is infinitely negotiable serves to negate every reason for having it in the first place.

The author is simply mistaken, both in appreciation of the motivations of the Tea Parties and in apprehension of what a 200-year-old document serves to offer in the way of contemporary guidance. Nobody, and I mean nobody, is burning incense to the Constitution. It would be sufficient if people would read it.

[TigersEye]

That is nothing but sophistry. The premise, that conservatives worship the Constitution, is false. The author also displays a rather profound ignorance of what the Constitution is and what it represents. Which is amazing since the Declaration of Independence clearly spells out what it represents. Our unalienable rights to be freely functioning human beings to the best of our individual abilities.

The Constitution is nothing more than a blueprint for a government, created by us, to protect that which it represents. Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Our basic human rights. If those things aren't the basics of human life to the author then what ideals or goals does he want to pursue? Spell it out. If he has a better way to secure basic human rights then spell that out.

Ridiculing reverence and reliance on the best plan we have for securing our most basic needs is infantile. Lacking any argument for a better plan or a more basic need of humanity than life and liberty the author is just ranting incoherently. As it stands our Constitution is the only document that has been written that establishes a government for the express purpose of protecting the natural rights of man.

It seems to me that the author isn't making fun of the Constitution's ability to achieve that purpose he's making fun of the purpose itself. If life and liberty aren't worthy of a passionate defense then what is? Equating that passion with idolatry is sophistry.

[TigersEye]

That is nothing but sophistry. The premise, that conservatives worship the Constitution, is false. The author also displays a rather profound ignorance of what the Constitution is and what it represents. Which is amazing since the Declaration of Independence clearly spells out what it represents. Our unalienable rights to be freely functioning human beings to the best of our individual abilities.

The Constitution is nothing more than a blueprint for a government, created by us, to protect that which it represents. Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Our basic human rights. If those things aren't the basics of human life to the author then what ideals or goals does he want to pursue? Spell it out. If he has a better way to secure basic human rights then spell that out.

Ridiculing reverence and reliance on the best plan we have for securing our most basic needs is infantile. Lacking any argument for a better plan or a more basic need of humanity than life and liberty the author is just ranting incoherently. As it stands our Constitution is the only document that has been written that establishes a government for the express purpose of protecting the natural rights of man.

It seems to me that the author isn't making fun of the Constitution's ability to achieve that purpose he's making fun of the purpose itself. If life and liberty aren't worthy of a passionate defense then what is? Equating that passion with idolatry is sophistry.

[GLDNGUN]

It can be criticized as crap but it is also part of the other guys agenda i.e. our Constitution is a living document and is and should be subject to change. It is wise to know if not understand what we are up against. They are out there.

It can be criticized as crap or it is crap? This was not some eloquent argument. It was the mindless ramblings of a complete idiot. What was so special about this that it deserved posting on FR without comment?

[xzins]

Should gays marry? No answer there.

What an ignorant comment by an ignoramus! Any power not specifically delegated to the Congress belongs to the states or the people.

The Constitution says the people's vote in California is the ruling law. Some asswipe judge says it falls into his personal baliwick.

These people are such liars.

[P-Marlowe]

I will never understand the thought process of a liberal/socialist.

That's because there is no thought process.

[cookcounty]

"Wouldn't it be splendid if the solutions to America’s problems could be written down in a slim book no bigger than a passport that you could slip into your breast pocket? That, more or less, is the big idea of the tea-party movement, "

Nobody believes that the Constitution holds all the answers to all the problems, but it surely holds the answer to protecting individuals from a predatory, power-hungry state.

[Carry_Okie]

The Rothschild toadies have spoken.

Now they can shut the hell up.

[Ranald S. MacKenzie]

"This guy totally misses the point. “Should gays marry?” He is correct that the Constitution doesn’t address gay marriage, and that is why it falls back to the State authorities."

One thing is certain that some judges seem unable to get. It absolutely does not compel gay marriage.

[Don W]

Anti-constitutional tripe being put forth. Perhaps a link to the current project?

[SuperLuminal]

Hogwash Alert!

[upsdriver]

I will never understand the thought process of a liberal/socialist.

....only because they don't have one.

[Publius]

FReeper Book Club: The Debate over the Constitution
5 Oct 1787, Centinel #1
6 Oct 1787, James Wilson’s Speech at the State House
8 Oct 1787, Federal Farmer #1
9 Oct 1787, Federal Farmer #2
18 Oct 1787, Brutus #1
22 Oct 1787, John DeWitt #1
27 Oct 1787, John DeWitt #2
27 Oct 1787, Federalist #1
31 Oct 1787, Federalist #2
3 Nov 1787, Federalist #3
5 Nov 1787, John DeWitt #3
7 Nov 1787, Federalist #4
10 Nov 1787, Federalist #5
14 Nov 1787, Federalist #6
15 Nov 1787, Federalist #7
20 Nov 1787, Federalist #8
21 Nov 1787, Federalist #9
23 Nov 1787, Federalist #10
24 Nov 1787, Federalist #11
27 Nov 1787, Federalist #12
27 Nov 1787, Cato #5
28 Nov 1787, Federalist #13
29 Nov 1787, Brutus #4
30 Nov 1787, Federalist #14
1 Dec 1787, Federalist #15
4 Dec 1787, Federalist #16
5 Dec 1787, Federalist #17
7 Dec 1787, Federalist #18
8 Dec 1787, Federalist #19
11 Dec 1787, Federalist #20
12 Dec 1787, Federalist #21
14 Dec 1787, Federalist #22
18 Dec 1787, Federalist #23
18 Dec 1787, Address of the Pennsylvania Minority
19 Dec 1787, Federalist #24
21 Dec 1787, Federalist #25
22 Dec 1787, Federalist #26
25 Dec 1787, Federalist #27
26 Dec 1787, Federalist #28
27 Dec 1787, Brutus #6
28 Dec 1787, Federalist #30
1 Jan 1788, Federalist #31
3 Jan 1788, Federalist #32
3 Jan 1788, Federalist #33
3 Jan 1788, Cato #7
4 Jan 1788, Federalist #34
5 Jan 1788, Federalist #35
8 Jan 1788, Federalist #36
10 Jan 1788, Federalist #29
11 Jan 1788, Federalist #37
15 Jan 1788, Federalist #38
16 Jan 1788, Federalist #39
18 Jan 1788, Federalist #40
19 Jan 1788, Federalist #41
22 Jan 1788, Federalist #42
23 Jan 1788, Federalist #43
24 Jan 1788, Brutus #10
25 Jan 1788, Federalist #44
26 Jan 1788, Federalist #45
29 Jan 1788, Federalist #46
31 Jan 1788, Brutus #11
1 Feb 1788, Federalist #47
1 Feb 1788, Federalist #48
5 Feb 1788, Federalist #49
5 Feb 1788, Federalist #50
7 Feb 1788, Brutus #12, Part 1

[Smokin' Joe]

For example, they say that the framers’ aim was to check the central government and protect the rights of the states. In fact the constitution of 1787 set out to do the opposite: to bolster the centre and weaken the power the states had briefly enjoyed under the new republic’s Articles of Confederation of 1777.

I take issue with this statement, simply because the Founders saw the failings inherent in the Articles of Confederation and sought to build a strong, but specifically limited and delineated system of government. It worked, not because either the Federal Government nor the States were at the top, but because the power of both levels of government came from the people. (...government derives its just poweers from the consent of the governed...)

The powers of both levels of government were delineated and limited by the Federal Constitution on the one hand, and the State Constitutions on the other, all other power being reserved to the People.

Were that still the case in practice, we would not have the mess we do.

[tarheelswamprat]

The Rothschild toadies have spoken.

Unfortunately, there aren't very many left here on Free Republic who even understand what you're talking about.

[Lazamataz]

Dear Great Britain,

We had a war once on how to run our countries. In the immortal words of our President Obama, “We won. Get over it.”

You go right ahead and continue to run your country into the cesspool of Europe, while we try to recover from our private little disaster (the afformentioned President), via the Constitution you malign — hopefully, to return to being the driving force of innovation and human rights on the planet.

Love,

Laz

[sauropod]

Indeed, there is something infantile in the belief of the constitution-worshippers that the complex political arguments of today can be settled by simple fidelity to a document written in the 18th century

This "analysis" is infantile. Swaddled in diapers to hold in the excrement.

I noticed that this "analysis" quotes the Brookings Institution and some pinhead from Haaaaavard.

'Nuff said.

[sauropod]

The more surveillance cameras you install, the safer you are. Since this has proven to not be the case as the perps simply wear hoodies, attempts to shut down these cameras have been made. The bills have failed. The UK is now the most surveilled country in the world. Without any effect whatsoever.

And we are headed down exactly the same path. They're just a little further along it.

[hcmama]

It is codswallop such as this that led me to cancel my subscription to The Economist earlier this year. They have long ago abandoned their libertarian-leaning free market direction and decided to give a full frontal face plant to Obama in 2008.

The decline of The Economist tracks well with the UK's slow, steady descent into third rate power status. Sad.

[wintertime]

the complex political arguments of today
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

The political issues are NOT NOT NOT complex! They are simple.

There are those who wish to move continually forward toward a communist Utopia., and those who wish to see the Constitution followed as written.