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.

Rats Jumping Ship

In a move that shocked no one, Arlen Specter abandoned ship on the G.O.P. Seeing that he had no other choice than jump sides or get unceremoniously trounced in the primaries, Specter did what most politicians are apt to do: he looked out for number one. He made all kinds of claims about the "far right" and various demogauges in the Republican party for his decision to join the Democrats. He gave his best version of the Reagan speech where he did not leave the party, but the party left him. Unlike with Reagan, people are seeing this shill for what he is. He is little more then another opportunist politician that felt a change and the winds and decided to follow suit. His voting record was never particularly principled to begin with, unless you count his constant attempts to make himself for powerful and important.

All that has changed by his actions is that the Democrats now have 60 seats in the senate and are "filibuster" proof. Unfortunately, this means that a lot more of Obama's agenda is going to get forced through the Senate. This has nothing to do with the Republicans and the Democrats actually disagreeing with each other, it's just that they have to spite each other from time to time. With this new super-majority, Obama and the Democrats are going to be able to run rampant over the Constitution and the free markets. Government Motors will soon be a small blip when compared to what is coming now. With no real opposition remaining, every big government, Keynesian pipe dream is now on the table. The saddest thing about this is that it would only be different under McCain because the Democrats would be against this stuff if a Republican proposed it.

One of the reasons that he was being pressured out of the Republican party was his support for the bailouts. It would be wonderful if that meant that the Republicans were finally moving to an honestly fiscal conservative platform. It would do the party, and the country, a great service if there was a truly libertarian voice to stand against the statism that is currently running rampant. One of the best ways for the Republicans to recapture America is to remove the neo and theo cons and the squishy center. Sadly, this is unlikely to happen. The Republicans have made many small government promises in the past, which they quickly forget once they regain power. It also wasn't too long ago that they were largely in favor of the TARP programs when Bush was proposing them. Let's also not forget a very (neo)liberal senator that recently left the Democrats and was welcomed by the Republicans with open arms simply because he supported military adventurism. It is hard to believe that the Republicans have actually changed when this guy was almost their Vice Presidential candidate:

The Red Threat

There has been an increasingly loud cry from some conservative and Republican circles that Barack Obama is leading this country down the path of socialism. There is weeping and gnashing of teeth from them and they are yelling from the roof tops that the end of days (for the American way of life) is at hand. They look at the "radical" bailouts, budgets, and government programs as proof that Obama will be the ruin of this nation. Unfortunately for them (and the people that pin their hopes on Obama to save us), what Obama is doing is nothing new - and it certainly is not socialism. What it is are the same tricks and "solutions" the government has been using for years, and a political/economic theory that has far worse connotations.

Every President since at least Wilson has been using the same techniques that Obama is now using. Presidents like FDR reveled in the thought that the government could be used as a personal savior to each and every citizen. Even Republican superheros like Reagan, massively increased the size of the government and its expenditures. One would be quite hard pressed to find any differences between the last President and this one. What people fail to realize is that a change in velocity is not a change in direction. In fact, Obama's massive increase in spending and government intervention isn't particularly out of the ordinary either. For the most part, the government has increased dramatically from one administration to another. People are just beginning to notice because 2 may not be that much bigger then 1, but 1,000,000 is much larger then 500,000.

Through all this, the United States is still not marching on an inevitable path towards socialism. The state has no intentions (or desire) of seizing the means of production and distributing the profit. What we are actually moving towards is an increasingly corporatist system. In this system, the government and private enterprises are working together at the expense of the American people. One doesn't have to look further then the TARP programs to see these ideals in action. The banks still keep their profits, but the debt is publicized so that they don't have to face any of the consequences of their actions. Farm subsidies, auto "loans", and many other government expenditures are also examples of this. The entire Federal Reserve system is based on corporatist ideals as a private institution is working hand-in-hand with the Federal Government. Where this is leading us to has been best described by Mussolini:

“Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power”.

What Goes Around

A new report was released today from the Department of Homeland Security detailing the rise of "rightwing extremist activity". This new report claims that the current political and economic climate is perfect for these groups to grow. It describes these groups as those that:

can be broadly divided into those groups, movements, and adherents that are primarily hate-oriented (based on hatred of particular religious, racial or ethnic groups), and those that are mainly antigovernment, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority, or rejecting government authority entirely. It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration.

Hate groups of all stripes are constantly under government scrutiny, however, as long as they do nothing illegal they are still protected by the constitution to exist. Just as people have the right to disagree with them and oppose them. Their inclusion in lists such as these is nothing new, but there are two new and disturbing things in this report.

The first is the inclusion of groups such as small government libertarians and even groups that support mainstream Republican issues such as being pro-life or anti-illegal immigration. This is akin to the Alien and Sedition acts under the Adams administration. One of the government's (many) law enforcement arms is essentially being used as a political tool to attack and ostracize people that disagree with the administration. By forcing these groups to the fringe, the government is able to minimize the message of said groups without the effort of debating the merits of their arguments. This tactic is both lazy and dangerous. It stifles debate and attempts to ensure that the people do as the government wishes.

The second is the use of the word extremist. As anyone that has been in the United States for the last 8 years knows that when the government uses the word extremist, it is interchangeable with the word terrorist. With Obama's "new" decision to continue the Patriot Act and the warrantless wiretaps, there is now little question that the ever seeing eye of the Federal Government is going to be fully trained on American Citizens in the United States. There will no longer even be the illusion of the "grey area" in which the government is using extra-constitutional powers to protect us from outside forces. As with all government powers, the DHS and the Patriot Act are expanding.

The irony of all of this is of course the reaction of the partisan cheerleaders. The libertarians and certain others have denounced the Patriot Act and the DHS as dangerous and unconstitutional from the outset. Until recently liberals and democrats also denounced this government power-grab, mainly because they did not like the people implementing it. It was the Republicans and the neo-cons that supported this action and constantly said that "if you have nothing to hide then you shouldn't worry!" Now that the letters have changed and especially since some Republican pet issues have come under attack, the tunes have changed drastically. Democrats are now trying to calm the masses with much the same rhetoric that Republicans used several months ago.

The Republicans have done an especially hard 180 after this report came to light. The outrage and indignation have swept across the internet and the radio (and Fox News). They now sound almost like small government libertarians in their preaching about constitutional bounds and over-extensions of power. It is astounding how quickly they changed their song once the letter after the presidents name changed. They had forgotten the first rule of representational government. The excessive and illegal powers that "your guy" grabs may very well be used against you when the next guy is the other team's. Maybe they will take this as a lesson in the future (doubt it...).

Whats Old is New Again

It's been a few months since the glorious election of Barack Obama, and already we are able to bear witness to the sweeping changes he has made from the failed policies of George W. Bush. Almost immediately after his election he decreed that Guantánamo Bay would be closed! Well, maybe - in a year... if it makes sense. He promised that the troops would come home from Iraq! At least when the time is right anyway, and only the ones that aren't needed for the new base... His ascension even ushered in a new era when the Federal Government would no longer interfere with the rights of the states with regards to their Medical Marijuana laws! Except for when they do... Finally, he is freeing us from the boondoggle that Bush made out of the economy! By doing the exact same thing that got us into this mess...

The reality of the situation is that in spite of the elation of the Democrats (and the weeping and gnashing of teeth from the Republicans) the election of Obama has do little to alter what is fundamentally wrong with this country. At most, he has pushed a little harder on the gas. Every speech, every action is essentially the same as Bush's. In fact, he represents the same government expansion and disregard for the Constitution that has existed for the better part of the last century. Granted, he is a better speaker then Bush was, and he has managed to whip up a populist fervor the way that Bush was never able to (sans briefly after 9/11), but to what goal?

He is granting unimaginable power to the Treasury. He is extending and expanding America's military adventurism. His administration has no intention of ending or even scaling back the Patriot Act. He is intent on maintaining broad executive powers through various orders and signing statements. His only differentiating quality is the grander scope of his actions, but even that is just an extension of the same big government ideals. There truly is nothing new under the sun. As long as our current duopoly stands, there will be very little change - or hope for that matter.