Can Conservatives and Libertarians Form a Coalition to Save the Constitution? – Part II

The Problem

Now that we have some idea of what conservatives and libertarians are let’s discuss the joint problem we have. First, the Constitution of the United States is no longer the one the Founder’s envisioned. I don’t mean because it has been amended. They envisioned that. What they did not envision was that it would change radically merely by a convoluted and sophistic interpretation process that began in earnest in the 1930’s when it was redefined as a “living” document. They may, however, have had some inkling of the problem if you consider the quotes below under “The General Welfare” heading. That “living” document process has almost rendered the U. S. Constitution “a mere scrap of paper”. A view of all constitutions sometimes attributed to Fredrick the Great. Second, I think we are now seeing the final step in this process an attempt to bring what I call classical constitutional democratic republican government (CCDRG) to a complete end and replace it with a sort of collectivist mob rule guided however by the elites of Washington D. C. and their bureaucratic minions. If collectivists remain in control, that final effort may come as an overt move to completely replace the document at some point. This has been openly talked about by a number of socialist individuals and groups. Obama himself has talked about the document being about negative rights – Obama Interview on WBEZ. My interpretation of his redistribution idea is nothing less than legalized theft. True individual liberty cannot exist if you take property from someone who gained it without violating some else’s rights, i.e. via theft, fraud, etc. and give it to someone else. The only way that can happen in a free society is through individual charitable giving. Anyone that has been half awake for the last 80+ years knows that the “altruistic” politicians and bureaucrats involved in the government redistribution process take a big cut of the money flowing through these programs. It is about power, control and money for them not about helping the downtrodden.

I think the perniciousness of this process is understood by many libertarians and conservatives but is not even on the radar of the vast majority of voters. In addition even among libertarians and conservatives there does not seem to be a good grasp of what can be done. I’ll suggest two things which we can discuss in more detail in subsequent posts. They are joint political action and some sort of joint educational effort to at the very least present the philosophy behind the Constitution to the general public especially those who are or have been in the government school system between 1970 and the present. Surely if voters are going to reject the U. S. republic they should at least understand what they are rejecting. Rest assured that unless individual teachers are making an effort to teach the true philosophy behind the Constitution it is not happening. Schools are now propaganda mills for collectivist ideas. Here’s just one example - Politically correct mumbo-jumbo in our schools. Many collectivists will tell you the Constitution isn’t really very important because it was a flawed document that allowed slavery for example. That’s another unsound argument. It is an amendable document and that flaw was eliminated. You can bet however that the flawed document sort of reasoning gets full play in government schools. You can also bet that the truth will never see the light of day in the average government school. That truth is that the Founders realized that people (themselves included) were not perfect and can never be trusted with too much power. That truth has not changed and had been germinating from the time of the Greek democracies and the Roman Republic long before our country’s founding. This from Cato’s Letters a series of essays very familiar to the Founders:

“There is something so wanton and monstrous in lawless power, that there scarce ever was a human spirit that could bear it; and the mind of man, which is weak and limited, ought never to be trusted with a power that is boundless.”

Cato’s Letter # 25 April 15, 1721

The Constitution was drafted to limit and divide the power of the federal government via checks and balances nothing more and nothing less. It was based on the Founder’s best understanding of the problems experienced in the Greek democracies and the Roman Republic, the philosophies of Adam Smith, John Locke and others, and on essays like those of John Trenchard and Thomas Gordon (Cato’s Letters). They did a pretty good job but nothing is perfect and the collectivists have been chipping away at this concept for about 100 years now. They have done a lot of damage. If we let them they will destroy the whole concept of limited government and the separation of powers.

The General Welfare

As a libertarian I believe that the root of most of our problems lies in the sophistic argument that the phrase “general welfare” found in two places in the U. S. Constitution transforms it into a “living” document. Check out the copy of the U. S. Constitution here or here, read the paragraphs that contain this phrase and see if you agree with collectivists on their interpretation that these words give the federal government the level of power they contend it does. You will find the phrase in the preamble and the first paragraph of Article I Section 8.

This idea got its first real opportunity for massive implementation during the New Deal of the 1930’s. Although the Supreme Court thwarted some of the New Deal’s unconstitutional collectivist programs the concept of a “living” document held. Taken to its logical conclusion it basically means we just make it up as we go along. In spite of what collectivists will tell you it really is the antithesis of the rule of law. How can you rely on the rule of law if the law isn’t in writing or if even though it is in writing it is subject to such broad interpretation that it might as well not be in writing? Just think of normal business contracts. Imagine you sign a contract with someone. Standard business contracts always have some way to change them by agreement between the parties or for parties to abandon the contract after giving notice in writing. There is usually some period of time that must elapse before the notice takes effect and there may be stipulations that some payment must be made to exit the agreement, etc. Now imagine you find out that the other party to the contract you signed a few months ago is violating it. You call him and ask why he is not adhering to your agreement. “Oh well” he says “that was a number of months ago and times have changed”. “I interpret this as a living agreement subject to change as the times change.”

The Constitution is a special kind of contract. It can be changed by amendment in writing only by one party. That party is the citizenry of this republic who can amend the Constitution via their representatives. You need the agreement of 2/3rds of the Senate and House and 75% of the state legislatures. The amendment process can be started in the Congress or in a convention held by the states. The New Dealers thought that was too much trouble so they just started adding powers and responsibilities to the central government and ignoring the amendment process. The excuse for this approach to the Constitution was the general welfare phrase. They called it a clause but it isn’t. It’s just a phrase taken out of context.

Now collectivists don’t want you to know this but this question of general welfare came up early in the history of this republic. Here is what two Founders had to say.

“Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated.”

- Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Albert Gallatin, 1817

"…in questions of power then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the constitution…"

- Thomas Jefferson

"With respect to the two words "general welfare," I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators. If the words obtained so readily a place in the "Articles of Confederation," and received so little notice in their admission into the present Constitution, and retained for so long a time a silent place in both, the fairest explanation is, that the words, in the alternative of meaning nothing or meaning everything, had the former meaning taken for granted."

- James Madison in a letter to James Robertson 04/20/1831

"The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.

The operations of the federal government will be most extensive and important in times of war and danger; those of the State governments, in times of peace and security. As the former periods will probably bear a small proportion to the latter, the State governments will here enjoy another advantage over the federal government. The more adequate, indeed, the federal powers may be rendered to the national defense, the less frequent will be those scenes of danger which might favor their ascendancy over the governments of the particular States."

- James Madison (Federalist Paper 45)

"If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one, subject to particular exceptions."

- James Madison in a letter to Edmund Pendleton, January 21, 1792

"There are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations."

- James Madison

I rest my case.

My next post will be on foreign policy which is an area of disagreement between libertarians and conservatives. Let’s see if we can agree to disagree until we have gotten this country heading back to CCDRG.