The Constitution was written to set the rules of government in stone. It takes an entirely new tact on how to define a government. Instead of saying what the government is not allowed to do, it defines what the government is allowed to do.
Anything that the government hasn’t been given permission to do is reserved for The People or the States.
Many years ago, I owned an ISP. Back when dial up was king. When my partner and I were discussing the terms and conditions, he wanted to make this long list of things that were not allowed. I went the other direction.
“Be good. If you are not good, your account will be terminated. You will be charged for any mess that you leave us to clean up. Cleaning up after spam starts at $2000.”
There was something in there about us being the last judge of what is “good”.
We didn’t have problems with our clients. They got it.
If we had created a list of, then if somebody found Y that they did and we would not like it. They would simply say, You didn’t say we could not do Y, and we would be out of luck.
Our Constitution works the same way. The government was given a limited set of things they were allowed to do. In addition, the founders added a set of “Hell NO!” clauses because they knew the state couldn’t be trusted. That is the Bill of Rights.
Our Constitution is a remarkable document. It created an astonishing country, one I’m proud to be a citizen of.
Of course, when the left loses, they cry. They claim that it isn’t fair, that it isn’t right, that you cheated. If none of that works, they then go to that old standby, changing the rules.
Trump got three justices confirmed to the Supreme court. That was because the Senate stopped filibusters on Supreme Court appointments. That was possible because the Obama Senate stopped filibusters for appointments below the Supreme Court. They were warned, but they did it. A few years later it bit them, and we have Bruen.
Facing a largely ineffective Congress, an overstepping Supreme Court, the rising threat of authoritarianism, and a government seemingly unable to address many of our most pressing problems, a small but growing number of liberal scholars and commentators have been making a strong case against a previously sacred cow: the U.S. Constitution.
—Ross Rosenfeld, The Case Against the Constitution, Newsweek, (last visited Aug. 3, 2023)
Well, isn’t that a kicker. The Constitution seems to be getting in the way of their goals. Maybe because their goals suck.
Among the biggest issues they cite are the amendment process (which makes changes virtually impossible), excessive veto points, the Electoral College, lifetime appointments for Supreme Court justices, a first-past-the-post (winner-take-all) electoral system (rather than, say, proportional representation), and a grossly disproportionate Senate that ensures greater power for the mostly white, more rural small states at the expense of larger ones.
—id.
If you look at California’s constitution, you will find a document with 514 amendments. That is quicksand compared to the granite under the Constitution of the United States.
Everything he is complaining about are the things that keep the wolves from voting to have lamb for dinner.
And “RACISM!” is there too.
When you look at election maps, and you see blue states, then look at the county maps and find that most blue states are mostly red by area, with a few very dense blue cities. Those blue cities use gerrymandering to maintain control of the state.
“There’s not just one way to do democracy, but the way we’re doing it now is bizarre,” he told Newsweek, “because it allows people to win victories in the presidency or control the Senate, the House, and state legislatures without actually getting the most votes.”
Yet, the Constitution acts as an impediment to any serious change.
—id.
That’s because we are not a democracy. We are a representative republic. The mob doesn’t rule.
“The simplest way to put it is the Constitution was written in 1787, and the framers designed a government for a tiny, primitive, agrarian nation of some 4 million people,” he said. “And they designed a government for their times; not for our times. Government wasn’t expected to do very much back then and they designed a government that couldn’t do very much.”
—id.
There it is, they want the government to do more. He has no understanding of living without the heavy hand of the government controlling him. More important to him is that the government will control you and me.
“Our devotion to the framers and to the Constitution [is] a strange custom that if you discovered it in a foreign tribe, you would come back and say ‘This is really odd.'” He added, “The national Constitution is treated really as a sacred book and to talk about amendments is almost blasphemous.”
—id.
It’s possible that we’re beginning to see somewhat of a change in public opinion—in part, perhaps, because of the willingness of some to dive into these previously toxic waters, and perhaps because the threats to democracy suddenly seem so very real.
—id.
The threat to democracy might seem real, that’s because what this entire article is about is the left not getting their way.
Bibliography
Ross Rosenfeld,
The Case Against the Constitution, Newsweek, (last visited Aug. 3, 2023)
Like this:
Like Loading...
