I believe, a very fundamental truth in respects to conservatism, in The United States, is a firm belief in the wisdom of our founders, and our founding documents… The Constitution was written to be the law of the land, and all subsequent laws were to likely have it’s foundation based on The Constitution. Also, through our founder’s great wisdom, they set forth a fair process for which amendments to The Constitution can be made, through the consensus of several states. As a conservative who believes in our Constitution, and founding principals, I do believe that each and every law that is being considered by Congress, “must” have a constitutional mandate to even proceed forward in the legislative process.
I don’t consider myself a hyper-partisan, in regards to party politics, but increasingly, I am having less and less tolerance for these so-called progressives who seem to completely disregard, even have a disdain for our Constitution, and founding principals. I have heard Barack Obama himself talk about the incompleteness of our constitution… Really? So is the inference that our founders were not competent enough to consider the necessary factors? Or, subconsciously, would you like to toss the Constitution to the wind, and create laws as you and other progressives see fit? If that is the progressive thought process, then in my mind, that is a true subversion of our Constitution, and of the very system of governance that our founders set in motion.
I have said this many times, but it is worth repeating… If all of Congress were forced to create laws that are in line with The Constitution, as opposed to a bunch of renegade laws, I think we could get back to some uniformity and well-needed continuity in this nation. It is not hard to imagine, if all of Congress, in both parties, were forced to follow the same rule book, increasingly, the gap between both major parties would begin to narrow.
Mark
Sunday, 15. November 2009
Please also see:
One reason why immigrants must come to The United States legally
–
The words “seperation of church and state,” are NOT in The Constitution
–
Should income tax in The United States be illegal?
–
The present assault upon capital
–
Ted Nugent on The Second Amendment
–
Constitutional rights trials and tribunals
–
A call to repeal (17th Amendment)
–
Highlights of The United States Constitution
Monday, 16. November 2009
Excellent Read(s):
http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/our-dead-constitution
–
http://faithfulinprayer.wordpress.com/equal-rights-not-equal-things
Monday, 16. November 2009
Judge Andrew Napolitano, interviewing Kevin Gutzman and Thomas E. Woods on The Constitution of The United States, while guest-hosting for Glenn Beck. Well worth watching! Very relevant to the post.
–
—
Please also see:
Judge Andrew Napolitano’s Constitution and Freedom
Tuesday, 17. November 2009
The Founding Fathers were NOT gods, they were fallible men. They did not (or could not) plan for the specifics needs of the population much beyond the horizon of their mortal lives. For example, they enumerated in the Constitution that the value of ‘non-free persons’ and “Indians not taxed” was three fifths that of a whole person (Three-fifths compromise). This provision was, naturally, repealed to reflect the evolving social realization that “all men are created equal” and required equal protection and representation. In fact, the Constitution has been amended twenty-seven times in the history of the United States in order to adapt to constantly evolving social realities. In the case of the eighteenth and twenty-first amendments, a federal power is enumerated (Prohibition) and later repealed in the same document.
The Founder’s were wise men that created an excellent framework for future generations to build on but the Constitution is NOT a static document. It is unlikely that the Founders even intended it to be so. The Constitution established the federal system of government by explicitly enumerating the powers of the federal government and reserving all unenumerated powers to the respective states. Yet in another revered historical document in U.S. history that preceded the Constitution it is clearly stated that Governments are instituted among men to secure certain “unalienable Rights” (”among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness”) for all men and “That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness”
I think the fact that government and the means of governance were intended by the Founders to evolve with time is something that many conservatives steadfastly ignore in their desire to turn the social clock back to decades and centuries past.
Tuesday, 17. November 2009
Hi, thank you for the comment!
Of course, when I speak for conservatism, I can not speak for all conservatives, but only from my perspective:
All your points are well taken, but let me see if I can challenge, or correct a few things…
George Washington, in his farewell address to the nation, conceded that things would likely evolve and change in time, which is why “our founders made it possible” to amend our Constitution: Article 5 of The United States Constitution
How many representatives each state has in Congress, is decided by (the census) the population of each state…The founders realized, by keeping the citizenry count lower, in the states that had (or advocated for) slaves, would give those states less representation in Congress; thus making it increasingly harder for Congress to vote for legislation that would prolong slavery, indefinitely… And that is why slaves were counted as three-fifths of a person. On the surface, the Three-fifths compromise sounds cold, but with better understanding, the less the slaves were counted, in the census, at the time, the less power the states who owned slaves would have.
Our founders also constitutionally banned the importation of slaves as of 1808; thus keeping the amount of slaves, in The United States, from growing.I stand corrected: Our founders, in compromise, constitutionally prohibited the abolishing of the slave trade until 1808… On New Year’s Day of 1808, Congress officially ended the slave trade in The United States forever.
Certainly, there were enough who wanted to abolish slavery from the onset, including Benjamin Franklin; however, we may have had a Civil War before the union even had a chance to get started. As we all know, that very issue did contribute to a war, between the states, 100 years later. As to The American Indians, they were not taxed; therefore, were not counted at all, in the census.
To your other point: The Constitution is a great framework, and one which all current laws should have their foundations grounded in by Congress. I am yet to meet a conservative that is looking to go back to a life-style of 1776, but we “do not want” Congress to have this untethered power to think they can create any laws as they see fit; which is precisely what they have done for all too many years.
If they continue to legislate that way, then they are essentially making The Constitution null and void; and we are no longer living in a “Constitutional” Republic, but rather, an illusion of one, only to get the powerful, and connected, elected, and re-elected to office.
Also, consider what you are saying…
If you read The Bill of Rights, we are so fortunate that our founders gave explicit powers to the people of this nation; and if you allow Congress to continue their subversions of our Constitution, then those first ten amendments (The Bill of Rights), could very well be next.
To your point on social issues…
I totally believe in The Tenth Amendment…
–
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
–
Therefore, the federal government should “not be involved in any social issues, or issues of faith,” whether it be for conservative or liberal causes. And again, the more the federal government stays out of the business of making laws that they were never given the power to make, the more freely a state, or the people of the respective states, can make their own laws, in regards to those things.
Wednesday, 18. November 2009
“…If, in the opinion of the people, the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed…”
From George Washington’s Farewell Address
Wednesday, 18. November 2009
I also believe that one of the biggest “threats” to our Constitution is the fact that the Supreme Court is NOT doing it’s job which is to make sure that all laws passed by the legislative branch are Consitutional.
Wednesday, 18. November 2009
Another critical factor that many do not know, or have forgotten: we started out as thirteen colonies; then after we won our independence, we became thirteen independent states. The states then created the federal government; the federal government did not create the states.
The federal government was (is) meant to remain limited, and the states, were to remain sovereign…except for the “limited powers” given to the federal government, by The Constitution.
Thursday, 19. November 2009
Thank you for the well-reasoned response.
I did not intend to insinuate that anybody really thought of the Founding Fathers as Gods, but my statement was incomplete and I stand corrected. When the U.S. Constitution was ratified the country was comprised of 13 States, covering approximately 400,000 square miles, with a population of less than 3 million. The Constitution was clearly not intended by the Founders to remain a static manuscript for all time, explicitly and dogmatically defining the law of the land for all the generations that came after it was penned. Referring to the Constitution and the explicitly enumerated powers as an absolute limit to the powers of the Federal government to “secure the Blessings of Liberty” for all of the People and their Posterity is ignoring the evidence of 200 years of history that proves exactly the opposite.
Regarding the Slave Trade Act of 1808, I find it necessary to point out that although the ban on the importation of slaves became effective on Jan 1, 1808 the Constitution (Article 1 Section 9) explicitly allowed the trade to continue for 20 years past the ratification bringing the estimated number of imported slaves within the borders of the United Stated to 4-million which was enough to: 1) continue to increase the population of slaves, and 2) keep up an active slave trade between the States that continued until Abolition in 1865. Based on your interpretation of the rationale of this act the Founders chose to sacrifice the “unalienable rights” of slaves for national security and stability. Unfortunately, they failed to forsee the eventuality of slavery leading to the Civil War that would claim over 650 thousand American lives.
Also, consider your stated position on the Tenth Amendment: It precludes the Civil Rights Act of 1964. If the Federal government had left ‘the people of the respective states to make their own laws regarding social issues’, lynchings, Jim Crow, segregation and all the institutionalized racism of the early 1900’s would have endured in parts of the country to this day.
The Founding Fathers were wise and progressive thinkers of their day. They created a framework for future generations of Americans to build on and adapt to their evolving values. Through the framework of the Constitution they created a governmental system that could be modified by popular decree. To many Conservatives, however, popular decree that disagrees with their worldview is somehow un-American or un-Constitutional and they are quick to resort to Constitutional purism in support of indefensible inequities in our country. Since the ratification of the original Constitution, the country has grown to 50 States encompassing 3.75 million square miles, subdivided into thousands of municipalities with a population of over 300 million diverse private citizens, tens of thousands of corporate citizens, and millions of immigrants continuously interacting via instantaneous mass and private communication, all trying to secure the blessings of liberty to themselves. The simplistic version of a federal governmental system that the Founders created did not anticipate this. It borders on irresponsibility to expect that a document sagely written and adopted 222 years ago could still structurally support the country today without some new carefully considered enumerated powers to adapt for the age that we live in.
Thursday, 19. November 2009
Certainly! This is a topic, and subject that is well worth the time and energy to discuss. From the start, let me just say, I am by no means defending the indefensible. Certainly, slavery, in The United States, is quite possibly the worse blemish on our country, in our short history; and it was an absolute tragedy. When I created this post, I would never have thought, I would be having a conversation about slavery; however, when you are chatting with mature adults, irregardless of your position, it is a subject that obviously still requires discussion in our nation, and should be discussed. That being said, while I am not making excuses for slavery in our nation, I still feel as though it is also my duty to do my best to attempt to correct any false statements to the best of my ability. Sadly, in public schools, there is also a long tradition of revisionist history, and a lot of people often grow up with a very negative perception of our founders; when in fact, for the most part, I do believe, they were just men.
Our founders were certainly not Gods, but were irrefutably, men of God. I have a great respect for them, and their wisdom. I totally understand and agree with your assertion that much has changed, in our nation, since the ratification of The Constitution… and such amendments, as The Thirteenth Amendment (1865), which freed the slaves, and the Fourteenth Amendment (1868), which asserted equal protection to all people in The United States, were both valid and necessary. This takes me back to my earlier point: our founders were well aware that The Constitution could not likely remain a static document; and with that realization, they gave us the procedure to amend The Constitution; thus making it possible for amendments such as The Thirteenth Amendment, through consensus of the states to happen. That procedure alone, demonstrates the pragmatic, and just nature of our founders; as opposed to an authoritarian and static document.
That being said, it was through the incessant, and arguably, abusive amendments to our Constitution, by 20th century Progressives, that turned an extraordinary amount of power over to the federal government; and through these subtle encroachments, we have ended up where we are today… in another struggle for the freedom and liberty that our founders gave to us, but also warned, we will need to fight for, if we are to keep it. Many do not realize, in The Constitution, our founders clearly said, no direct taxes shall be laid, unless apportioned to the states; then, in 1913, The Sixteenth Amendment was ratified, allowing the federal government to tax our income directly. I have no doubt, our founders would be outraged over that! To me, it was one of the biggest blows to state sovereignty, in our history.
I have not read extensively on this subject, but from what I have read, the whole tradition of slavery, was a tradition that came to our shores, via the laws and traditions of our motherland, Great Britain. Undoubtedly, and historically, it is well-documented that the issue of slavery was an issue that our founders struggled intensely with. In fact, George Washington, in his will, set all his slaves free.
You are correct… keeping with the direction of The Constitution, Congress did make it against the law to import slaves into The United States, in 1808; however, these laws were not well-enforced, and you are correct, slaves were still traded within The United States.
That rationale was not my own, it was the rationale of our founders…
In order to build a union with the southern states, and have a unified Constitution ratified, many concessions, and compromises were necessary. Clear-minded people can easily conclude that keeping slaves, and asserting that all men were created equal etc., was a direct contradiction. And again, there is much historical info to read on this subject: many of our founders were adamantly against slavery and would have chosen to abolish slavery immediately; however, slavery was so integrated into the commerce of the colonies and states, that sadly, our country “would not have formed” by abolishing slavery from the onset; and it took a bloody war to finally end slavery. And again, slavery was a moral tragedy, but at least from my point of view, it was not a subject that was just swept under the carpet; it was rigorously debated by our founders; some Constitutional steps were made to end it; and with a praise from God, slavery would end, and the union survived. I think that says a lot about our ability to right what is wrong in our nation, and still survive. I pray, we can get through these present day struggles, and somehow find unity again; but once again, our nation is bitterly divided.
Women also had to fight hard for their rights in this country; as well as Jewish people, and many other groups…
I don’t believe my position on The Tenth Amendment would necessarily had stopped civil rights laws… Congress, by a two-thirds vote, and three-fourths approval by the states, could have just as well addressed the same laws, through amendments to The Constitution, or by consensus of the states. After all, that is how we handled The Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments. Again, I am not challenging the validity of the Civil Rights Act; I am very thankful for those laws; I am saying, The Tenth Amendment was given to us, by our founders, to protect us from the federal government being able to usurp all of our state’s rights. And what has happened over the years? The federal government did just that! We have very little to no state sovereignty anymore.
Without making this a long discussion, consider this:
Suppose a state like Maine or California voted, and made it legal for gay people to get married… Now, according to your thinking, the federal government could, conceivably, tell the sovereign state of Maine, you MUST stop allowing gay people to get married! And that is an example of exactly why our founders gave us The Tenth Amendment. And the federal government’s arrogance came over a hundred or more years of constitutional amendments, subversions, and assumptions that they could swallow up all rights that our founders, intrinsically, preserved for the states, and the people of the states. If you do an insightful study of political history, you will see that power corrupts, and has no boundaries, if allowed to continue on, unchecked.
I can not speak for all conservatives, but the ones I have spoken to, really just want the laws to be followed, as directed by our own Congress. Again, without a real long discussion on this subject, consider our immigration laws… Our immigration laws are written by Congress…they clearly made laws that give people a clear way to come to our country, work hard, and over time, become legal citizens. I think it is great that we are a diverse and tolerant nation, but when conservatives get upset with people incessantly entering our country illegally, a lot of liberals get mad at them; and again, all conservatives are saying, is: Congress, “you created the laws,” so please, enforce them!
I can tell you with 85% certainty, that the populace conservative movement you are seeing today, came from many years of frustration with a growing federal government, out of control spending by both parties etc; as a result, many conservatives began diving into our constitution, for the first time, this year… and boy is it eye-opening when you see how far removed we are from our original foundation. Do you know, Congress no longer refers to our Constitution when creating laws? Therefore, what law can they not make? Where does the power of the federal government end? I think all liberals and progressives should be asking these same questions… as a federal government with no limits, will eventually swallow up all of our civil liberties, and freedoms.
And again, I don’t disagree with you… clearly the country has grown, and many things have changed; however, if you really dive into The Constitution, and really read the intentions behind it, you will find, our founders had a lot more foresight then you may realize. All I am asking; and most conservatives are asking, is for our law-makers to use The Constitution for it’s foundation when creating laws. As I said in the post: I am looking for uniformity, and continuity, again, in our nation; and by using The Constitution as our foundation, we will all be playing from the same handbook.
Here is where we have slightly opposing views: I often think, Progressives, and Liberals, don’t want The Constitution to be relevant today, because they want to have an almost anything goes society; and with little restrictions… of course, I may be wrong.
I believe, the best thing we can all do, is to assert our Tenth Amendment rights… As long as the federal government has an absolute rule over us, then no matter what state you move to, you are always at the mercy of the laws that the federal government create; as opposed to having the freedom to migrate to a state that best affords you the life style of your chosen. For most of us, our founders gave us maximum freedom… today’s federal government is minimizing our freedom, more and more, with each passing year.
–
Please also see:
The Founding Fathers and Slavery
Sunday, 20. December 2009
Here is Barack Obama, in his own words, in regards to The United States Constitution… It is very disturbing to me…to say the least…
–
“…But The Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society.”
And to that extent, as radical as I think people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn’t that radical. It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution, at least as it’s been interpreted, and the Warren Court interpreted it in the same way that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. It says what the states can’t do to you, says what the federal government can’t do to you, but it doesn’t say what the federal government or the state government must do on your behalf. And that hasn’t shifted. And one of the, I think, tragedies of the civil rights movement was, because the civil rights movement became so court-focused, I think there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalitions of power through which to bring about redistributive change. And in some ways we still suffer from that.”
–
2001 interview on Chicago Public Radio Station WBEZ FM
You can listen to the full interview here.