Posted on 04/25/2002 9:41:56 AM PDT by Korth
WorldNetDaily book editor Joel Miller recently authored one of the best common-sense constitutional arguments against the government’s failed “war on drugs” that I’ve seen (“Alan Keyes is Wrong!”, April 23). It was a response to neo-conservative Alan Keyes, who had written in support of U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft’s use of the federal Controlled Substances Act to exert federal dominion over drug regulation by the states. Keyes was addressing Oregon’s “euthanasia laws” that permit the dispensation of lethal drugs, and Miller agreed with him that “killing yourself . . . is not medically legitimate.”
The bigger issue, though, is what constitutional right the federal government has to exert such control over drug regulation – or any kind of regulation for that matter – by the states. As Miller pointed out, Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution, which delineates the legitimate appropriations of Congress, does not include regulating drugs (or the vast majority of what the federal government does today, for that matter). The Tenth Amendment, moreover, reserves such powers “to the States respectively, or to the people.”
Miller interestingly quotes historian David Musto as having observed that until the late nineteenth century, the federal government laid no claim to such regulatory powers; such things were the responsibilities of the states, or the people. Miller is correct to invoke the Tenth Amendment in his argument, but this Amendment was all but destroyed during the War Between the States, after which federal political hegemony was established. As Dean Sprague wrote in Freedom Under Lincoln, “States Rights, which prior to 1860 had been as important a part of northern political beliefs as southern, were overturned.” This includes, first and foremost, the Tenth Amendment.
Miller also correctly observed that the “progressive era” federal regulatory agencies “were profoundly unconstitutional and un-American” and are “the elder bedmates of the coercive, expansionist politics of modern-day liberalism.” Exactly. This, however, is exactly the position that neo-conservatives like Alan Keyes hold.
There is a method in the neo-con assault on the Constitution: They routinely invoke the part of the Declaration of Independence about “all men are created equal,” but not the rest of the document, as our “national creed,” even if the policies they advance in the name of that creed are in deep conflict with the Constitution itself. For example, in Keyes’s article he bases his argument in support of federal drug regulation on the equality principle of the Declaration. He claims that the Constitution supposedly creates a “federal regime of ordered liberty” by which democratic mobs supposedly “govern themselves in dignity and justice” (I’m not making this up, honest).
To neo-cons like Keyes, the Constitution supposedly prohibits the interpretation of federal law by anyone but the federal government itself because the people of individual states are supposedly incapable of doing so; only “the people of the whole nation” are “competent” to perform this task. But his makes no sense, for there is no such thing as “the people as a whole” acting on this or any other issue. The fact that a small percentage of us votes every four years or so does not imply that we are acting with competence as “a whole people” on this or any other issue. A state referendum on a specific issue, on the other hand, is much more meaningful in terms of citizen participation.
Keyes barely ever makes a speech or writes a column anymore where he does not invoke the Declaration and make a not-too-subtle comparison between himself and Abraham Lincoln. Indeed, he frequently states that his main passion, the pro-life movement of today, is the equivalent of the abolition movement of the nineteenth century. (This comparison is not entirely accurate, however, if one acknowledges Pulitzer Prize winning Lincoln biographer David Donald’s statement that “Lincoln was not an abolitionist”).
The link between Lincoln and neo-con ideology is clear: Lincoln falsely claimed that the Union preceded the states, and was therefore not subject to their sovereignty. The neo-cons make the exact same argument in advancing whatever policy cause they happen to be involved in, whether it is drug regulation, abortion, censoring of television, waging war, etc. This is why so many neo-cons, such as the ones associated with Keyes and the Claremont Institute, are such slavish idol worshippers when it comes to Lincoln. They use his martyred “sainthood” to promote their political agenda through an ever more powerful federal government. That’s why they’re described as “neo-cons” and are not a part of the Old Right tradition: They are comfortable with Big Government, as long as it fights their wars and enacts their social and regulatory programs. This is one reason why there is such a large “Lincoln Cult” among conservative (but mostly left/liberal) academics and think tank employees.
But the alleged supremacy of the federal government over the states is a lie. It was established by the most violent means, a war that killed the equivalent of more than 5 million Americans (standardizing for today’s population), not logic, argumentation, or even legal precedent. It is a lie because:
Each American colony declared sovereignty from Great Britain on its own; After the Revolution each state was individually recognized as sovereign by the defeated British government; The Articles of Confederation said, “each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence”; The states then decided to secede from the Articles and dropped the words “Perpetual Union” from the title; Virginia’s constitutional ratifying convention stated that “the powers granted resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression.” This right was also asserted for all other states; In The Federalist #39 James Madison wrote that ratification of the Constitution would be achieved by the people “not as individuals composing one entire nation, but as composing the distinct and independent States to which they respectively belong,” flatly contradicting the contrary assertions of Keyes and other neo-cons; The Constitution always speaks of “the United States” in the plural, signifying that the individual states were united in forming the federal government as their agent while maintaining their sovereignty over it; The Constitution can only be amended with the authority of the states; Until 1914 U.S. Senators were appointed by state legislatures so that the states could retain a degree of sovereignty over federal “officials,” who now have carte blanche to rule over us as they wish.
Only by endlessly repeating what Emory University philosopher Donald Livingston calls Lincoln’s “spectacular lie” that the federal government created the states (and not the other way around), and that the nation was supposedly founded by “the whole people” and not the people of the states in political conventions can the neo-cons continue to champion the further centralization of governmental power to serve their own political ends, whatever they may be.
Of course, it’s not only the neo-cons who perpetuate this lie. Liberals and other assorted leftists do so as well. The left-wing journalist Garry Wills, for example, praises Lincoln’s “open air sleight of hand” in effectively rewriting the true history of the founding (not unlike so many of the former communist governments rewrote their own histories during the twentieth century) because it enabled us to embrace “egalitarianism” and the massive welfare state in whose name it has been advanced (Lincoln at Gettysburg).
Columbia University law professor George P. Fletcher echoes the neo-con mantra in Our Secret Constitution, where he celebrates the fact that the centralized state that was imposed on the nation by the Lincoln administration has led directly to the adoption of myriad “welfare programs,” “affirmative action measures,” the New Deal, modern workplace regulation, etc. He is quite gleeful in his description of the Gettysburg Address as “the preamble of the second American constitution.” This is not necessarily a written constitution, however, but one that has been imposed by federal policy.
This transformation of American government from one in which federalism, states rights, and the rights of nullification and secession allowed the citizens of the states to retain sovereignty over the federal government to a consolidated, monolithic Leviathan, means that Americans now live under what historian Clinton Rossiter called a “constitutional dictatorship.” He used this phrase in a book of the same name which appropriately featured an entire chapter on the “Lincoln Dictatorship.”
That's exactly correct. ReaganMan is confusing the evolution of the ideology with the evolution of its individual supporters. It actually makes no sense to assume that all who share the view must've arrived via the same route.
You initiate armed conflict when you open fire on your opponent. If Davis didn't want a war then he didn't have to fire on Sumter. Members of his cabinet warned him against it but he did it any way. The 60 or so soldiers in Sumter posed no threat to the confederacy. Lincoln could have put 600 or 6,000 or 60,000 troops on the island and they still wouldn't have threatened Charleston. Why shoot if you didn't want the war that followed?
An a$$ is an a$$, and I don't see how Bush can be connected to the actions of a$$e$.
Educate me, oh wise one.
Half truth. Disinformation.
Justice Grier's opinion also cites the Militia Act -- a piece of United States legislation, as the rationale for his decision affirming that the president had the right to put down the rebellion against "the so-called Confederate states."
Walt
If that were true, then why did it take four years to defeat an army that wasn't there?
Grant, Sherman Sheridan, Thomas -- and President Lincoln gave them all they wanted. They went home. Hundreds of men deserted every night from Lee's army early in 1865.
Lee had less than 8,000 effectives on 4/9/65. Where did the rest go?
The Army of the Potomac alone numbered 135,000.
Walt
That's because the vote of one supreme court justice allowed treaty provisions to over-ride not only state's, rights, but individual rights as well (Migratory Bird Act). Since then, whenever the feds wanted to extend jurisdiction, it conspired with another nation(s) to create a treaty in order to circumvent the 10th Amendment and the Bill of Rights. Virtually every federal regulation on the books which infringes upon individual rights and liberties and over-rides state's rights was born of treaties. This was clearly, and continues to be, a conspired mis-application of Article VI, para 2 .
The minority opinion on the Migratory Bird Act is worthy of reading. The stampede for federal jurisdiction has been picking up steam ever since.
The states not only refused to fight the feds on this, they capitulated so fast it makes one believe the states were pushing this for a long time. Personally, I believe the states actually wanted broader powers over its Citizens, but were bound by their constitutions. What better way to unleash that power than by letting the federal government do it for them -- escaping the blame in the process. Let's not ever forget that the federal government IS the representative of the states in congress -- and the strong arm of state bullies.
If any did leave, maybe it was to go home to plant a crop so they and their families could have some food. Yankees couldn't win in 4 years win on the battlefield, so they resorted to actions that we condemn today. Innocent women and children and not legitimate military targets. At least not for an honorable man.
----------------------------------
Good point. -- This 'progressive' big government socialist movement didn't really get rolling till the turn of the century, when, as you note, unprincipled politicans of both parties saw an easy way to make and end run around constitutional restrictions. - And seduced the voters with pork.
Now, - we've got the pork, but are starting to rebel at the socialistic restrictions. -- Thus, - the statists attack the constitution itself, even claiming portions are 'evil' amendments. Whatta buncha BS.
Grant, Sherman Sheridan, Thomas -- and President Lincoln gave them all they wanted. They went home. Hundreds of men deserted every night from Lee's army early in 1865.-Walt
You still didn't answer his question, Walt.
Lee had less than 8,000 effectives on 4/9/65. Where did the rest go?
Any number of places. Injury, death, desertion, division, capture, typical things of war. It's a long conceded fact that the yankees had both larger armies and a greater pool of men to draw from - It's all the population dynamics that played a key role in the north's win, a fact I've been trying to drive into your thick head for quite some time.
The truly amazing thing is what that same army did to your side at Cold Harbor and any number of battles where the odds were greatly stacked against us. What was done by 44 confederates under the command of a mere lieutenant at Sabine Pass has rightly been identified as the Thermopylae of modern history.
Think about it, Walt. 44 Irish dockworkers with six cannons in behind earthen fortifications stopped a union invasion flotilla of over 5,000 yankees accompanied by four warships and nineteen troop transports. During the course of the battle they killed 230, captured another 350, grounded all four warships including the destruction of two of them, collided two transports, sent the yankees running back for New Orleans, and barely suffered a scratch themselves.
So yes Walt, the south was continually outnumbered in troops throughout the war. Yet under those circumstances came a whole string of against the odds victories that were nothing short of amazing. So capable was the undermanned confederate military that the yankees suffered 100,000 more casualties than the confederates during the war.
Normally, suffering such an extraordinarily higher number of casualties is itself enough to cause the defeat of a nation...unless those men are expendible compared to limited numbers on the opposition's side, which was exactly the case here. Either way, it is a fair characterization to note that the northern victory was a pyrrhic one.
Hitler's early career was part of the Secret Army of Murderers which plagued post war Germany. It is through his linkage with occult groups such as the Thule society that the Nazi's true beliefs are most clearly illustrated.
While it often looks touch and go wrt to Hitler's future the fact remains that there was no force in Germany capable of resisting this drive to power not even a Social Democratic/Communist alliance. As we so often see in this country those willing to use violence and power seeking policies without regard to truth are almost impossible to eliminate. With no one willing or ruthless enough to use maximum force except the Nazis I cannot see how Nazism could have been avoided given the makeup of the German people at that time. While the timing of the seizure of power could be debated, I see nothing that would have stopped Adolf.
Your mention of Hindenburg is a case in point. The most dynamic, ungovernable political force in Germany was supposed to be controllable by a doddering old man barely competent to utter a few words in public while standing on his own feet. I don't think so.
His military strategy assured the Slaveocracy of defeat. Thankfully God works in mysterious ways and thus, did not allow a potentially winning strategy to be adopted by the nitwits controlling the Slaveocracy and removed its greatest advocate at Chancellorsville. Once Stonewall was in the ground the Slaveocrats no longer had even a slight chance.
V.D. your knowledge of history is clearly deficiet or you would know that the North was sick and tired of the war and dealing with the morons who ran the Slaveocracy. They were ready to discard the Radical Republicans and allow the Slavers to resume power after the war was won. This drove the RRs crazy since they could see that the DemocRATS were itching to throw away the entire effort of the war and resume the corrupt northern RAT machine-SlaveocRAT alliance which has always been so destructive to the fight for liberty and a strong nation.
However, when Slaveocrat sympathizers and agents murdered Lincoln and began a reign of terror in the South public opinion switched back to understanding that the enemies of the nation could not be allowed to regain power and impose new terror against the newly freed slaves. Thousands of blacks were murdered by the Klan and Red Shirt terrorists because they dared to walk on the same sidewalk as the terrorists not to mention attempt to exercise their freedom and new political rights.
Reconstruction under Lincoln would have been relatively mild (at least as mild as the traitors and terrorists would have allowed) since he had great fondness for the south and southerners being one himself by birth and marriage. With Malice toward None was another of his memoriable phrases (of which he created more than anyone except Shakespeare) which he believed with all his heart.
Prior to the war violence and murder of slaves was limited because of their tremendous economic value to their owners. Once their value was eliminated because of emancipation they became objects of almost universal white hatred. Often murdered by the score at times many thousands (and their white supporters and allies) were killed in the years of Reconstruction by the terrorists attempting to force them back under the rule of the Slaveocrats. Only a few of the former leaders made any attempt to treat them with humanity and allow even a small share of political power to flow to them (Wade Hampton and John Singleton Mosby were noble examples of such right thinking whites.) The Slaveocrats have only themselves to blame for the restrictions on their resuming political power.
Northern capitalists (like most of the Northerners) were not the supporters of Reconstruction who were almost all entirely motivated by moral considerations. Not even Marx maintained otherwise. Read just a tiny bit of history and you can easily see the Defenders of Slaveocracy (D.S.s)are peddling lies to the gullible and ignorant.
We'll never know if Reconstruction would have been less traumatic had Lincoln lived. It might have been, given his roots were in the South and most of his actions as candidate and president were based on political expediency.
Of course there were atrocities inflicted after the War for Southern Independence -- but not just in the ravaged Southland that was struggling mightily to survive under the crushing boot of Reconstruction.
I have probably read and absorbed as much history as you have. My ancestors helped settle Wiregrass Georgia and many were veterans of the War. Fortunately, I began to think for myself after returning to the South and started questioning the biased education I received in northern schools.
If you are so steeped in American history, perhaps you should delve into a few tomes you may not have in your library: "Southern By the Grace of God" by Michael Grissom is a good start, and for even deeper reading, "The Tragic Era" by Claude Bowers, and "A Southern View of the Invasion of the Southern States and War of 1861-65" by Capt. S.A. Ashe.
I took my FR name, Varina Davis, from one of the most courageous-- if unsung--women in history.
From your butchering of the English language, I doubt many people take you seriously. OTOH, the vast majority of American's take President Bush seriously.
Now, if you understood politics, power and the presidency, you wouldn't be making asinine comments concerning how many times President Bush has read the US Constitution. Suffice it to say, Bush has done his homework on the Constitution and has even improved his public rhetoric. Which is more then we can say for you, at this time.
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.