The Neo-Con Assault on the Constitution

Lewrockwell.com ^ | April 25, 2002 | Thomas J. DiLorenzo

[Reagan Man]

We agree on Rockwell, but little else.

As for Alan Keyes. You may consider him a conservative hero, but most conservatives, myself included, do not. BTW, I happen to agree with Keyes on some issues. I just don't like him. As for George W.Bush being a neo-con, that's simple not true. At no time in his life, was Bush ever politically associated with liberalism and therefore, can't be labeled a neo-con. And finally, to equate President Bush with Neville Chamberlain, shows a poor understanding of history. You may not support Bush, or even like him, but your convoluted rationale and inflammatory rhetoric, concerning his loyal conservative-republican supporters, has no basis in truth and serves no good purpose.

[tpaine]

-- Thus, -- Lincoln & the 14th had little/nothing to do with the death of states 'rights'. The loss of these state powers had everything to do with the rise of national political parties that embraced socialist principles at both state and federal levels.

The tenth is full functional, -- but states political regimes refuse to use it to fight the feds.

Actually it did. Read his book that's been discussed in depth around here, The Real Lincoln.

Great arguement, -- 'it did'.
Yes, Lincoln hating ideas are much discussed, but offer little. -- The fact is that federalisation started in earnest in the 1900's.

One of the things that happened with the 14th was that it received a no vote from the Southern states (a right of the state to turn down proposed amendments), which was followed quickly by occupation and another vote to get the 'correct' response. Two northern states were so adamant against the actions of the union that they reversed their votes on the Amendment (New Jersey and one other). The new no votes of the northern states were not counted and their original yes vote was kept

So what? - Doesn't change the facts that the federal government had little power till it stole it in the early 20th century.

[uncbob]

I do believe that means Johnny Reb lost the war big time!

Yeah he did but the ironic thing is that today he is more patriotic than the Yankees from the left wing northeast

[uncbob]

The tenth is full functional, -- but states political regimes refuse to use it to fight the feds.

Most state legislatures are more than happy to grovel for federal funds either directly or with strings attached
That way they don't have to raise state taxes and can shift the blame to Washington

[billbears]

The fact that Johnson himself stated the federal government did not have the power to enforce the 14th without denying the 10th means nothing to you then?

[tpaine]

And suprisingly enough, less than 20 years later the Northern Transcontinental was built without one federal government red cent!!

Are you claiming that Hills Northern Pacific didn't get federally granted right of way?

Wasn't the alternate section grant still in effect?

[FreeTally]

Most state legislatures are more than happy to grovel for federal funds either directly or with strings attached That way they don't have to raise state taxes and can shift the blame to Washington.

Unfortunately true. State-level politicians have more power with federal dollars.

[tpaine]

The fact that Johnson himself stated the federal government did not have the power to enforce the 14th without denying the 10th means nothing to you then?

In what context did he state that? It might mean a lot, if you make some effort to explain. -- And, -- Johnson is hardly anyone most of us would choose as a constitutional authority, -- can you understand this position?

[Korth]

What the Lincoln haters really are saying is that they wish the USA was not one country.

What the critics of Lincoln are saying is that they wish the South had the same right to self-determination that our government has long proclaimed to other parts of the world.

[Korth]

They will try to cover this by suggesting that the south would have abolished slavery and rejoined the USA on their own,.....

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. As for the eventual abolition of slavery in the south: Slavery had existed throughout the northern States at one time, and had gradually been abolished. It was also peacefully abolished throughout Latin America. There is no reason to believe that things would have ended up any differently in the South.

[rightwing2]

As for Alan Keyes. You may consider him a conservative hero, but most conservatives, myself included, do not. BTW, I happen to agree with Keyes on some issues. I just don't like him. As for George W.Bush being a neo-con, that's simple not true. At no time in his life, was Bush ever politically associated with liberalism and therefore, can't be labeled a neo-con. And finally, to equate President Bush with Neville Chamberlain, shows a poor understanding of history. You may not support Bush, or even like him, but your convoluted rationale and inflammatory rhetoric, concerning his loyal conservative-republican supporters, has no basis in truth and serves no good purpose.

What convuluted rationale and inflammatory rhetoric concerning his loyal supports are you talking about? Everything I said was absolutely 100% true.

Here's the only thing I said in reference to Bush supporters:

"I think all clear-eyed Republican conservatives, who are not blinded by naive and unfounded unconditional loyalty to the President have come to realize that by now."

So, I ask you again what convuluted rationale and inflamtory rhetoric about Bush supports are you talking about?

At no time in his life, was Bush ever politically associated with liberalism and therefore, can't be labeled a neo-con. And finally, to equate President Bush with Neville Chamberlain, shows a poor understanding of history.

Since when is being a former liberal a requirement for being a neocon? Neoconservatism is a philosophy founded by former Democrap party liberals, but most of its ideological adherents are lifelong Republicans. Bush meets all the requirements for being a neocon. He is a committed globalist/internationalist. Economically, he is a New Dealer and supports big government at home and abroad (NAFTA/FTAA/GATT/WTO). He has increased fedgovt spending at a much higher rate than Clinton did when he was President. He championed the far-left Kennedy education bill as his own which federalizes education and increases the education budget by nearly 50% and continues to deprive parents and children of educational choice. Like all other neocons, Bush supports globalist managed "free" trade cabals. He actually supports increasing immigration to the US from the poorer nations of the world and making the INS more friendly to "undocumented worker" and other immigrants favoring the establishment of INS "welcome centers" on the US-Mexican border.

Bush supports 80% of the Clinton third-way liberal agenda on foreign policy, trade, immigration issues and much of Clinton's domestic agenda as well including the neofascist AmeriKorps, federalization of education, big Medicare benefit increases, and much, much more. Nothing conservative about that, is there? So, in calling Bush a neoconservative for the first time, I am being uncharacteristically kind. I usually refer to him as our "conservatively challenged" President, a "center-lefty" or a mushy moderate. "Traitor to the GOP" is the most accurate political descriptor for what Bush has done in eviscerating the GOP by signing Democrap Incumbent Protection legislation earlier this year. Bush signed this Democrap majority ensuring bill against the will of the vast majority of GOP loyalists and elected officials (the most ardent of whom have since filed suit to this unconstitutional legislation) and in contravention of numerous campaign promises to oppose it. His surrender of the GOP's ability to win elections to the Democraps is certainly on par with Chamberlain's appeasement of the Nazis at Munich and it was done for the same purpose in the interests of "peace in our time" with the liberal Democrap partisans with whom conservatives have long since learned there can be no peace.

[4CJ]

Ms. Davis,

It is an honor to make your acquaintance. Please allow me to express my deepest sympathies with the passing of your late husband, a man whose likeness will grace our presence but once a millenium.

Deo Vindice.

[4CJ]

What the critics of Lincoln are saying is that they wish the South had the same right to self-determination that our government has long proclaimed to other parts of the world.

Bump.

[DoughtyOne]

Change that 80% to 90-95% and we're in agreement. Poor unconditional enablers, these are very trying times.

[Korth]

And without a USA we would probably be living under Nazism or Communism today.

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.

And when one considers the terrible course that history has in fact taken the last 140 years (and especially the last 98 years), it is wise and useful to consider how our past leaders could have done things differently to avoid the terrible destruction of lives and liberty that have occured during that time period. Learning from the mistakes made in the past is the best way to avoid the same horrible mistakes in the future.

[Korth]

As for George W.Bush being a neo-con, that's simple not true. At no time in his life, was Bush ever politically associated with liberalism and therefore, can't be labeled a neo-con.

Although it is true that originally a neo-conservative was a person on the left who switched to the conservative side on certain issues, the term now refers to anyone who shares such views whether or not they were ever on the left earlier in their life.

[4CJ]

The south seceded, and was told by Chief Justice Lincoln that it was illegal, Senator/Congressman Lincoln delared war and raised an army, and President Lincoln sent troops into a foreign country. Senator/Congressman Lincoln suspended the writ of habeas corpus, arrested thousands of innocent civilians, closed newspapers, and fought a war killing over 620,000, not to mention thousands of civilians kiiled by federal troops and starvation.

Then the states are forced to ratify the 13th Amendment (which was accepted) as a condition for RE-joining a union they allegedly never left, only when failing to ratify the 14th are kicked out (a violation of Article V BTW), puppet governments are instituted, and the south looted of untold millions in the next 12 years.

And we're supposed to pretend like it never happened. And like it.

[x]

More proof that di Lorenzo is a loony. If you are going to write an article about the drug war, why not make the best case you can on that issue and not drag in all the antebellum baggage that will only convince those who are already convinced and will turn off most other readers? Di Lorenzo simply throws everything he has in his files on the page, mangling a complicated paper by Madison in the process. Unfortunately it doesn't add up to proving what he thinks it does, let alone the idea of state secession at will that he defended in his book.

Every President and Congress since Washington has made use of the "implied powers" of the federal government under the Constitution. That very much includes "strict constructionists" like Jefferson and Madison. That is part of the logic of the Constitution, and is the reason why the Constitution endured and the Articles of Confederation failed.

There may be constitutional questions about the drug war, but with the growth of interstate commerce after the Civil War, it was inevitable that the federal government would use its constitutional powers to regulate interstate trade. Whether this includes aspects of the drug war is another question, but for good or ill it does provide a constitutional mandate for much of what the government does today.

The idea that the Civil War was fought between Federalists and Anti-Federalists or centralizers and state's rightists or statists and libertarians is superficially appealing. It would come as a surprise to those Wisconsans who asserted state authority against the fugitive slave acts, though, and to those Southerners who used federal coercion to get their way on this issue. It would also trouble those who witnessed the conflicts between the state governments and the Confederate government or the willingness of both to use repressive measures to preserve their power.

Similarly, the speed with which Southerners got on the progressive bandwagon in the twentieth century to use federal taxes for their own benefit makes one skeptical of the whole idea of a fixed libertarian vs. statist, South vs. North polarity in American political history. As do the claims of "state's rightists" for absolute state sovereignty and their willingness to bring all the power of the state down on those who are in their power. State's rights is another form of statism and it can be ferocious to those in its grasp.

The idea of a federal union in which we all have certain basic rights and freedom of movement from state to state was more a Lincolnian than an anti-Lincolnian idea. The alternative would have meant more power for state government, no guarantees of basic rights, and less mobility across state lines.

[tpaine]

Shush. -- Apparently no one here wants you to address reality, they want to fight the civil war, - over & over & over & ---
-- a pox on all their houses.

[tpaine]

Shush. -- Apparently no one here wants you to address reality, they want to fight the civil war, - over & over & over & ---
-- a pox on all their houses.

They quibble of who did what a hundred forty years ago, while the constitution crumbles.