Books: Who Killed the Constitution?

The Constitution is dead. That blunt but unavoidable truth should be clear by now. The examples from the past century of American constitutional history cited in this book reveal how the federal government's actions often bear no resemblance to what the Constitution's ratifiers intended, and in fact run directly counter to the plain text of the Constitution.
~Page 199

"Who Killed the Constitution?", written by Thomas E. Woods, Jr. and Kevin R. C. Gutzman, attempts to chronicle the slow death of the Constitution of the United States of America. It focuses on twelve especially grievous examples of the Government usurping power from the time around World War I up to the Presidency of George W. Bush. These twelve examples touch all aspects of America's eroding liberties from state sovereignty to personal and financial freedoms. Through them, the authors of this book have been able to create a definitive proof that the Constitution has been overrun by the politicians and judges sworn to uphold it. They also show that this destruction did not happen overnight. It was government building on itself, over time, that allowed this to happen.

The assaults on the Constitution are not the work of one branch of government, or of one party, and they did not and could not emerge overnight.
~Page 2

The authors of this book smartly chose to avoid laying the blame at the feet of one party over the other. In fact, the book starts with the abuses of Woodrow Wilson, a Democrat, and ends with George W. Bush, a Republican. The book points out that those blinded by partisanship often see wrong doing in those on the "other side of the aisle", but fail to see any when it is their "team". They also do a great job pointing out that it is not just the fault of "activist judges" or any other single branch of the government. All three branches have failed to act as the "checks and balances" to each other as they are Constitutionally obligated. Instead, they have conceded powers to one another, such as giving the President almost unlimited war powers. They have then turned to the states and to the people to find new powers to obtain. This fact crosses both partisan ideologies and, as this book has show, no matter how much lip service to the Constitution or outrage shown over the other party flaunting it, few politicians from either side will actually work to restore it.

[I]f we are truly to confront a government that has destroyed our allegedly hallowed Constitution, we must not shy away from calling attention to abuses, regardless of whom it offends.
~Pages 3-4

One of the strongest aspects of this book is that it does not shy away from controversy in making its case of Constitutional abuse. Instead of only cherry-picking examples that are both unconstitutional and are glaringly harmful to the citizens, the authors have also chosen some examples that seem like the government was doing the right thing. One such example is the matter in which schools were integrated. Almost everyone can agree that segregation was a horrible thing, but that does not necessarily mean that the Federal Government had carte blanche to end it. Some of the action that the government took to stop segregation, and discrimination in general, were unconstitutional, and in fact, discriminatory. By calling out this and other "taboo" examples, the authors are able to build a much stronger case about the government leaving its Constitutional bounds. It would have been very easy to use only government actions that they disagree with on a personal level, but that would have been little more then partisan whining.

In plain English, Madison was saying that Congress had only a few powers... The power to build roads, bridges, and canals was not among them.
~Page 75

The book also casts a harsh light onto things that the American people take for granted as government responsibilities and powers. There are many things that the American people no longer bother questioning whether they are even Constitutional. It is assumed that the government handles roads and has the power to make fiat money. This was not always the case and the government had to absorb those powers in steps. There has been a change in the American way of thinking that instead of the government having to prove that its actions are Constitutional, they are now assumed to be. This way of thinking has permeated all the way up to the Supreme Court. It has become so accepted that the government should have a role in every aspect of American life, that it has become almost impossible to "prove" that the government has assumed a power that does not belong to it.

By calling attention to what the Constitution really says, we can alert the people to just how consistently and dramatically their fundamental law has been betrayed.
~Page 202

This book succeeds at its goals admirably. It lays out a clear case that the government has destroyed the Constitution, and has been doing so for almost a century. By not laying the blame solely at the feet of either party or branch of the government, they show that they are not simple partisan hacks. By pointing out that what is "right" is not always Constitutional, they show that the concessions that Americans are often so willing to make are not acceptable if we are to reign in our government. Finally, by questioning government institutions and privileges that are taken for granted, they show that it is up to us to cast a stern eye on our government, no matter how "accepted" their actions are. We did not end up here nor will we leave here overnight. If we are ever to limit our government again, it is up to us no matter how hard it may be.

Golden Age Syndrome

Golden Age Syndrome is a horrible affliction that can affect millions of Americans. It is the belief that at some point in the past everything was much better and our current problems are caused by getting away from that ideal time and way of life. It's mostly seen in Republicans and social conservatives, but people of all political stripes (even Democrats and rarely Libertarians) can catch it. The symptoms include strong belief in mythologies that never happened, fervent denial of reality, defense of the imaginary, and in the final stages, a refusal to move forward. These symptoms can cause otherwise rational people to ignore any problems that existed within their ideal time, no matter how glaring they are. People from that time take on super human qualities and no contemporaries can hope to stack up. They then become so enamored that any solution to a problem that does not automatically recreate their ideal is ignored.

There are many variances of this disease, with the most common being caused by the "moral decay" strand. This is most usually seen in Social Conservatives and is typified by the belief that America's failing morals are causing all of the country's woes. They often point to some ill-defined time in the nation's past where everyone went to church and no one ever even considered doing anything wrong. This argument is usually coupled with the claim that the nation has turned away from God. Never mind that this time in America's history never existed. Many of the founders were deists, and prior to that if you believed in God (the same one) the wrong way you were burned at the stake. In fact, at the founding of the nation there were no drug laws and prostitution was perfectly legal. There was also slavery, war, disenfranchisement, rum running, riots, and any number of other things that are generally considered to be negatives that are conveniently ignored. The simple fact is that this magically wholesome time never actually existed.

The second most common variant is "hero worship" and is can contracted simultaneously with "moral decay", but that is not always the case. Reagan, FDR, and Kennedy are often the focus of this sickness. They are placed on a pedestal as some mythical creatures that in single strokes did inhumanly amazing things. Reality cannot get in the way of that vision, and the faults and wrongdoings of these men (and women) are simply misunderstood or excused because of all the amazing things that they did. When the hero was around everything in America was better because of them. Libertarians are most susceptible to the "founding" subspecies of this variant. We can start to believe that there was a time when the Constitution was followed to the letter and the founders were all honorable and brilliant men. While they may have been for the most part, they were not without (many) faults of their own. In fact, the ink on the Constitution hadn't finished drying before Hamilton and Washington began circumventing it. Hero Worship can be the deadliest of the Golden Age Syndromes because it is the one that most often leads to paralysis. Unless someone is a perfect replica of the hero, they will not get any support in what ever they do, no matter how much the afflicted agrees with them.

There are many other variants still like "unbiased press." Though they all may be different, the symptoms are usually the same. The only known cures is healthy skepticism, research, and caring friends. You should not be ashamed of this disease, and seek help if you think that you may be suffering from it. If you think that a friend may be suffering, it is your responsibility to help them, no matter how much they resist. Through hard work and caring, it may be possible to eradicate this disease from the country. Always remember, if something seems too good to be true, it probably is.

The Myth of the Unbiased Press

There is an idea in modern America that the press is supposed to be unbiased and only report the straight facts. Republicans complain about organizations like MSNBC and the New York Times, while Democrats do the same with Fox News and AM radio. Both sides act as if the press was once a shining beacon of impartiality, which has only recently become "corrupted" by bias. This notion is simply untrue. Human beings are completely incapable of being totally objective, and always have been. We tend to tell our version of the story first and foremost, and tend to give more credence to the side that we agree with.

Even at the founding of the United States, the press was extremely partisan. Most, if not all, of the early publicans were either Federalist or Republican. The Federalist Papers were initially published through several newspapers sympathetic to their viewpoints. Early politicians often used various partisan newspapers to disparage and mock their rivals. Phrases like "frog-eating, man-eating, blooddrinking cannibals" were regularly used to describe the opposition party and its leaders. When scandals, such as the one involving Alexander Hamilton's mistress, came to light it sent both sides of the press into a frenzy. The Federalist newspapers did everything they could to minimize and distract from the scandal, while the Republican ones devoted most of their resources to exposing it and find more "dirt." Scandals involving Republicans produced predictably similar results.

If anything, the news media has become less partisan to cater to a very fickle subscriber base that only wants to hear sensationalist stories and things they agree with. Even though each member of the press has their own slant on a story, it runs a distant second to ratings and readership. That means if a sensationalist story breaks about "their guy" they are still going to pull out all of the stops to report on it. It also means that if the American people are largely in favor of something then the press will likely be as well. Nothing evidenced this more then the run up to the Iraq War. There was very little question of its wisdom in the press, even "liberal" standard bearers like the New York Times. It wasn't until popular opinion began to shift about the war that the press followed. At the end of the day, ratings matter more then anything, even to the members of the press with the largest ideological axes to grind.

It falls to the American people to decide for themselves, what they want to read, hear, and see from the news media. If a certain viewpoint that enough people want to hear is woefully under represented then the market will see that and someone will fill the void. We do not need government oversight in the form of a "Fairness Doctrine" or agency to make sure that every thing is "fair and balanced". Who would decide what is fair anyway? People regularly find reporting that they agree with to be unbiased, and everyone else to be slanted or not telling the whole story. The market can do a fine job of proving media for people of all viewpoints if it is allowed to. In fact, Fox News is the highest rated cable news network, and it caters to the segment of America that is the most vehement about the "Main Stream Media" being biased and not representing them. Remember, the Constitution promises us a free press; not an objective one.

The FCC ...Yeah You Know Me

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
1st Amendment: United States Constitution

The Supreme Court has once again decided to allow the FCC to run rampant over the rights of American broadcasters. It is now perfectly acceptable for them to fine a broadcast company up to $325,000 for any content they find objectionable, even on live programming. The court used one of the favorite arguments of statists everywhere: "It's for the children." Without the protection of the government, how can the American people be protected from the filth in the would? The airwaves would be filled with such horrors as to melt away the viewers' faces. One person arguing for the government claimed that without giving the FCC broad censorship powers "Big Bird would be dropping F-bombs." Justice Antonin Scalia and his colleagues claimed that children imitate what they hear, and since television is so pervasive, it is imperative that we protect them from any indecency on it.

Never mind what the children are exposed to everyday outside of the television. Is the government going to fine parents, the children themselves, or anyone that happens to swear in a public place? Even if we ignore the realities of ever leaving your house, the government is failing to make a logical or accurate argument. The FCC and the Supreme Court claim broadcast companies may be subjected to extraordinary regulation because of the "scarcity" of broadcast signals and the "unique" pervasiveness and accessibility to children. Justice Clarence Thomas, in a concurring opinion, even noted that this reasoning was on increasingly shaky ground. The simple truth is that, even though there was a point in the nation's history when television and radio did have these unique qualities, advancements in technology have rendered those points moot.

It is also very telling that the Supreme Court chose not the address the First Amendment concerns in their ruling. Justice Thomas also pointed out that :

The text of the First Amendment makes no distinctions among print, broadcast, and cable media, but we have done so.

Even members of the Supreme Court, the protectors of the Constitution, know that the FCC is violating the First Amendment, but continue to allow them to do so anyway. Censorship is censorship, no matter the reasons. Instead of dealing with the real issue at hand, the court decided to punt back to a lower court to decide if the FCC's actions are Constitutional. They were able to do this because the previous ruling against the FCC was on procedural, and not Constitutional, grounds. If the lower court finds against the FCC on Constitutional grounds, it is very likely this case will come before the Supreme Court again. If that happens they will be forced to do the right thing or show themselves as nothing more then statists in robes.

We the people need to start taking more responsibility and regulate what our families watch ourselves. If you do not support something that is on the television or the radio, change the channel or turn it off, it's that simple. There are even technologies in every modern television that can block questionable content automatically. If we are not able to do this simple thing, how can we do anything without the government holding our hands? This is especially important as the government turns its eyes toward the internet. We must stand strong against them, and not beg them to do our jobs for us. No regulation, no matter how innocuous, must be allowed to pass. Once the government has its claws into something, there is no getting them out.