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 governments failed war on drugs that Ive 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 Ashcrofts use of the federal Controlled Substances Act to exert federal dominion over drug regulation by the states. Keyes was addressing Oregons 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 Keyess 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 (Im 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 Donalds 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. Thats why theyre 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 todays 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; Virginias 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 Lincolns 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, its 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 Lincolns 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.
It is likely that virtually any politician would act similiarly to FDR when faced with the prospect of mass starvation and an armed violent communist revolution.
Remember simplicity is mostly for simpletons.
No greater calamity to the pursuit of Justice and Liberty could have happened to this nation than if the Slaveocracy had triumphed. Secession was an ignoble cause postulated on concepts which were the opposite of those espoused in the Declaration and would have destroyed mankind's "last best hope."
No greater calamity to the pursuit of Justice and Liberty could have happened to this nation than if the Slaveocracy had triumphed. Secession was an ignoble cause postulated on concepts which were the opposite of those espoused in the Declaration and would have destroyed mankind's "last best hope."
I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. BTW I don't consider threatening to arrest legislators and Supreme Court justices to be "unexceptional". I also don't recall secession being mentioned in the DOI or the Constitution. I'd love to chat but I've got to work. Be back this evening.
You are correct that the "ideas" of Jefferson resulted in the bloodletting imposed by the Slaveocrats' attempt to destroy the Union and constitution. Fortunately, those ideas were so half-assed that they were inevitable failures.
Southern insistence on States Rights was one of the major reasons it lost. The states of the Cornfederacy were incapable of operating together as a nation and thus, dissapated much of the little strength it possessed because of this incapability. Hamilton correctly rejected a radically decentralized power and an agriculture-based economy understanding that such would never succeed in a contest with a modern state and a modern economy.
His understanding of the basis of political power was most fully validated by the results of that war and the growth of the world's greatest nation using his financial system.
Which woud have resulted in no USA. So they wish there was no USA, or they refuse to acknolwedge what the consequenses of what they wish for would be.
I am not aware of anyone who thinks that the south would ever have volutarily rejoined the northern States in political union, especially after the brutal treatment the north inflicted on non-combatants in the south.
I have had that argument used on me by neo-Confederate Lincoln haters on this forum when I argued that the result of succession would be no USA. They say if Lincoln would have accepted succession, the South would have abolished slavery on their own, and rejoined the Union, so the Civil War was unnecessary. Of couse the fact that the South started the war belies the argument.
Any drastic change in history such as the South winning its independence would have greatly altered course of history throughout the world. We don't know the details of what those changes might be, but it is rash to assume that communism and national socialism would automatically have arisen in any event.
You are right, we don't know what exactly would have happened. But I cannot believe that the world would be a better place without the USA. Do you believe it would?
I do not attack FDR out of any sense of "fashion". When he re-interpreted the Commerce Clause, and replace the historical meaning of the word "regulate" with the more modern meaning "to control or have authority over" he caused a systemic shift in the balance of power in favor of the federal government. I firmly believe that it was a serious error to do this based on no more than creative semantics, and without the consent of the states through a constitutional amendment. It's legacy is an ever expanding federal bureaucracy, and a growing mistrust of the federal government. History records that he was advised at the time that his New Deal policies were unconstitutional without an enabling amendment, and that he basically resorted to blackmailing the USSC with the Court Packing Bill to get them to agree to his interpretation of the Commerce Clause. Desperate measures taken during desperate times are not immune to constitutional requirements.
I wish that some of the posters here would pursue the historical debates with less venom. I agree that they are important; that they have implications for the present. But we are more allied on present issues than these debates often suggest. We need to work together, where possible, to recapture the common aspects of our heritages.
Having said all of that, I feel that Keyes is seriously wrong in supporting Federal attempts to intervene in Oregon on questions that are clearly within the traditional State Police Powers. If Oregon wants to allow physician assisted suicide, what possible business is that of anyone outside of Oregon? This sort of interventionist approach embarrasses Conservatives in academic debates, and loses us the potential support of those who have not yet made real commitments.
William Flax Return Of The Gods Web Site
ROTFLMBO!!!!!!!!! Would that be the same 'system' that has this nation falling apart at the seams? Tell me one part of Hamilton, Clay, and lincoln's 'American System' that has worked. Wait, it's the Federal Reserve, isn't it? No, the Fed Chairman sneezes and capitalist Wall Street drops 200 points. Talk about govenment control of the economy. No, no, that can't be it. Wait. It's the infrastructure. That's it!! All the roads that the government built for us taking 4 times longer than necessary to build the roads? No, no, because the owners of the Union Pacific did that so much it bankrupted the company and cost three to four times more than other railroads just like it. It's the social programs!! That's it, the social programs!! They take care of us and rape us of 20 percent of our income just for Socialized Security. Wait, that's going broke too!!
Maybe you could point out to me what part of the 'American System' Clay, Hamilton, and Clay's lackey lincoln envisioned that actually has worked?
Parts of FDR's program were found unconstitutional and parts were not. But more court time has been devoted to the commerce clause than any other aspect of the constitution.
Supreme Court rulings as early as 1793 did that. See Chisholm v. Georgia.
George Washington urged an immovable attachment to the national union.
President Lincoln used the power given the president in the Constitution to preserve the government established by the framers.
Walt
Davis also contended that the central government had the right to coerce the states.
"Conscription dramatized a fundamental paradox in the Confederate war effort: the need for Hamiltonian means to achieve Jeffersonian ends. Pure Jeffersonians could not accept this. The most outspoken of them, Joseph Brown of Georgia, denounced the draft as a "dangerous usurpation by Congress of the reserved rights of the states...at war with all the principles for which Georgia entered into the revolution." In reply Jefferson Davis donned the mantle of Hamilton. The Confederate Constitution, he pointed out to Brown, gave Congress the power "to raise and support armies" and to "provide for the common defense." It also contained another clause (likewise copied from the U.S. Constitution) empowering Congress to make all laws "necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers." Brown had denied the constitutionality of conscription because the Constitution did not specifically authorize it. This was good Jeffersonian doctrine, sanctified by generations of southern strict constructionists. But in Hamiltonian language, Davis insisted that the "necessary and proper" clause legitimized conscription. No one could doubt the necessity "when our very existance is threatened by armies vastly superior in numbers." Therefore "the true and only test is to enquire whether the law is intended and calculated to carry out the object...if the answer be in the affirmative, the law is constitutional."
--Battle Cry of Freedom, James McPherson P.433
Walt
The record shows that, despite myth, the CSA armies mostly deserted and went home more than they were defeated in battle.
Walt
True?! Hardly. Frankly, nothing of your inflammatory remarks were true. But I see, you've got yourself convinced otherwise. Congrats.
Since when is being a former liberal a requirement for being a neocon? Neoconservatism is a philosophy founded by former Democrap party liberals...
Talk about contradicting oneself!!! I seriously suggest, you start using a dictionary. Merriam-Webster defines neoconservative as, a former liberal espousing political conservatism. One of the founders of neoconservatism, some even call him the father of neoconservatism, is Irving Kristol. Kristol, along with his wife Gertrude Himmelfarb are well known for their neoconservatism dating back to the 1950`s. BTW, their son is the editor of the neoconservative magazine, The Weakly Standard, Bill Kristol.
The remainder of your rant is typical of someone who knows nothing about politics, power and the presidency. You may be on the rightwing of American politics, but your rhetoric and ideology is more in tune with that of a reactionary absolutist and not with the mainstream conservative movement in America today. But nice try, bucko.
Precisely. The Commerce Clause was place there to keep the states from enacting tariffs and engaging in destructive trade wars.
"To regulate commerce among the several states"
"Regulate" meant to make regular, or keep in good working order.
An analogy can be made to the power company. The have the authority to do whatever is necessary to regulate the electricity in your home, meaning they keep the voltage and phasing within prescribed limits, and insure that the cabling and infrastructure are up to the loads being placed on it. It does not mean they can come into your home and dictate what appliances you may own, or when you can and cannot use them, or for what purpose.
How so? Murder is prosecuted by the states, with the exception of so-called "hate crimes".
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.