Is There Originalism in the Tea Party?

Now that fiscal conservative Paul Ryan has been chosen as Mitt Romney's choice for VP, I think this is a good time to republish this article from last year. There seem to be many who think that because Ryan says he is a fan of Ayn Rand, that it means he is automatically some sort of laissez-faire radical. The fact is that in a recent FOX interview with Britt Hume, Ryan stated Rand had inspired him, but that that he is 'opposed' to her 'atheistic philosophy'. That is certainly not a rejection of her philosophy, but only of her atheism, because her atheism did not propel her economics or her support of individual sovereignty. But Paul Ryan is no Objectivist, any more than Alan Greenspan, who walked away from his Objectivist roots before he took the job of Chair of the Federal Reserve.
A good reference about this subject is at The Objective Standard, a publication that does not appear to be associated with any other Rand-oriented institutions. 

I am not ready to say whether or not anyone in the Tea Party has Originalist interpretations which they have or have not stated. I just don't know, yet. I questioned the office of Ron Paul, and the office of a locally-elected member of Congress, but as yet have gotten no response from either office. [And I never did.]

In March of 2010 the New York Times published an article about the lack of social issues in the Tea Party agenda. "The motto of the Tea Party Patriots, a large coalition of groups, is 'fiscal responsibility, limited government, and free markets.'....But the focus is also strategic: leaders think they can attract independent voters if they stay away from divisive issues."

In December of 2010 Suite 101 published this: "The Tea Party is a grass-roots movement in favor of smaller government, fiscal conservation, and an originalist interpretation of the Constitution."

The Atlantic said Tea Party members are "by and large, social conservatives, not social libertarians," and "In fact, it seems that the main intellectual solution offered, and problem posed, by the Tea Party movement is the connection between government spending and personal liberty."

That, for me, is the rub, especially if it is true--that the Tea Party sees their freedom only (or mostly) in fiscal conservatism, rather than in uprooting the anti-Constitutional legislation of coercion that has been allowed to survive not only debate, but to survive through various courts including the Supreme Court.

Why is it OK for members of the Tea Party to authorize or approve the spending of money on the dole if it is simply less money, enough less to make them happy to spend any at all? In other words, why is it OK to spend $5 trillion on Medicaid if it isn't OK to spend $15 trillion? Why is it OK to spend $500 million on a State's food stamp program, when they don't think its OK to spend $900 million? Where (and why) does the subjective line exist?

It is a subjective line, because there should be no line. Charity exists where charity is felt, not by local or State officials who have no right to redistribute what Peter has to feed Paul. It exists where concerned individuals and charitable institutions exist to feed, clothe, house, and give medical care to 'Paul'. That would be an Originalist interpretation, not necessarily on all government charity, but on such programs as social security, which is enforced on both employees and employers, yet which pays so little after retirement that anyone living only from that finds themselves in the poor column when compared to their wage-earning or pension-earning neighbors.

It wouldn't make it 'more Constitutional' if they were not in the poor column of government recipients. If our society was geared toward finding the solution to retirement income that is neither forced upon employees nor employers, a solution that does not redistribute wealth nor force anyone to set aside money but rather sets high standards of inducement for saving toward retirement, then the Constitutionality of such inducements would be the question.
   
But it is a Constitutional issue when only the cost/benefit ratio, or even simply the cost itself, is at issue rather than the law which makes the matter an issue to begin with.

The Tea Party needs its Originalists to step forward, take at least some of the reins, and steer the party, slowly-but-surely if slowly is necessary, toward the Founding ideas, rather than just in the direction of subjective and very temporal ideas, ideas that change as the political pendulum swings. The 'grass roots' represented by the Tea Party should be more substantive than to be simply fiscally conservative.

'Like' Curtisedwardclark.com on Facebook
© Curtis Edward Clark 2012

Obama and Charity

"What is going to become of our charities if almost 33% of it dries up simply because of Washington's policies?"
 
Doesn't the 'general welfare' clause of the Constitution mean that the Federal government is empowered to dole out charity? James Madison, the principle author of the Constitution, said that the welfare clause is "qualified by the detail of powers (enumerated in the Constitution) 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." [emphasis added]

"I cannot find any authority in the Constitution for public charity. [To approve the measure] would be contrary to the letter and spirit of the Constitution and subversive to the whole theory upon which the Union of these States is founded."
President Franklin Pierce's 1854 veto of a measure to help the mentally ill

There are dozens of direct references to charity and other welfare by the Founders. And it is clear from the hundreds of other references they made about the meaning of this or that word or clause of the Constitution exactly what was intended when they wrote it. But one thing is undeniably clear about Americans: they are willing to see the 'spirit of the law' in the letter of the law, and usually it is not a 'spirit' put there, nor accepted, by the people who gave it to us.

"Until the New Deal era [charity] was known not to be an enumerated power nor one reasonably implied by the 'necessary and proper' clause and therefore considered unconstitutional. Yet around the time of the New Deal, government began overlooking this clear unconstitutionality" Is Welfare Unconstitutional?

 "The fiscal year 2013 White House budget specifies that the federal tax deduction for charitable contributions be reduced to a maximum of 28% for married couples with income over $250,000, and single individuals with incomes over $200,000." source

 But that White House policy is harmful. In 2009, 89% percent of American households gave an average of $1,620 to charity annually; it was $308 billion in 2008, accounting for 2.2 percent of our GNP), higher than any other country in the world. "This clearly shows America does not have a charity problem--and shows that Americans are fully capable of giving away their own money to good causes." source

Now compare that to the FY2013 Budget, in which we clearly see that Mr. Obama would prefer the Federal government be the major contributor to the health and welfare of Americans:

"This budget would reduce the value of the charitable deduction for certain individuals, effectively subjecting them to pay taxes on money that they give to charity instead of using it to benefit themselves. [G]iving by households with $200,000 or more in income would have decreased by $820 million in 2009 and by $2.43 billion in 2010 had the administration’s proposal been in effect." source [emphasis added]

"Before the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, which led to nearly $3 billion in donations for victims' families, donations because of large-scale disasters were measured in millions--not billions....an unprecedented $7.37 billion in donations to disaster relief groups in 2005." source What is going to become of our charities if almost 33% of it dries up by 2015 simply because of Washington's policies?
  
© Curtis Edward Clark 2012

Ron Paul vs. Paul Ryan

    I was surprised to read that Congressman Ron Paul was criticizing Paul Ryan's huge $4T budged overhaul.
    In part, he said he thinks we are “drifting to a point that our big government [ ] tells us what we can do and be responsible for us. And if we don’t have a house, they’ll give us a house. If we don’t have education, they’ll give us free education. If we’re hungry, we get food stamps. And deficits don’t matter. And if you need money, you print the money. And we have this moral obligation to police the world."
    But that makes sense--sort of. Ron Paul is correct, but where has Paul ever said this or that government program is un-Constitutional? Has he only criticized 'big' government without attacking its roots? You have to eradicate the roots of anything be they plants, government programs, or ideologies--or they will grow back again.
    Paul did say more, to that end. "We are dealing with a problem in Washington as a budgetary accounting problem and that’s not it. It’s a philosophy problem." Paul said. What is the philosophy of government?
    The congressman went on to question the role of government in the economy and welfare system. "Ryan," he said, "doesn’t reject that notion. I do.”
    On the Mangru Report hosted by Dan Mangru, posted on Paul's own fan website, Paul says this:

"As long as the American people think that we have to police the world and have this world empire and that we have to take care of people from cradle to grave, no tax system will work. You have to change the philosophy of government. Then you can do away with the income tax and not replace it with anything just as we had before 1930."

    But I still have to ask what Paul's philosophy of government is? Is he afraid to confront the idea of un-Constitutionality run rampant, or have I simply been missing those new articles and TV interviews?
    Perhaps it is because Paul only thinks that we are drifting toward Big Government that I am peeved about his remarks. That makes me skeptical of whether he is up to the job of helping to lead us out of our suicide-by-altruism mentality.
    I will do some homework, and find out. Ron Paul is correct about Paul Ryan--but only if Ron Paul believes the current philosophy of government itself runs counter to Originalism and to what is specifically written, both in the Constitution and in the letters and papers by the Founders about that philosophy. Otherwise, he is no different from Paul Ryan; he only wears a different suit to hide what he isn't showing.
    Show us the beef, Congressman Paul. Show us your Originalist interpretations.


© Curtis Edward Clark 2011
Visit the Atheist-AA Google Group
http://groups.google.com/group/atheist-aa

Original Meaning of Ninth Amendment Is Lost in Modern Jurisprudence

     The Ninth Amendment is the Constitutional description of "individual sovereignty".
     "Those Virginians, such as Patrick Henry and George Mason," wrote Dr. Roger M. Firestone,[1] "who argued most strongly for the Bill of Rights, knew that the individual would require defenses against the authority of the state. [ ] The battle now is not between the Republicans and Democrats, which are merely parties, nor between liberals and conservatives, who dispute over values, but, as it always has been, between liberty and tyranny...[ ] Despite the efforts of some to 'deny or disparage' its meaning, the Ninth Amendment stands, not as a waterblot,* but as a watershed, separating those who would yield to despots...."
     Jefferson wrote[2] about the inseparable and indispensable economic aspect of individual liberty, and how just laws were designed to protect the equal rights of all individuals.
     "Individual sovereignty was not a peculiar conceit of Thomas Jefferson: It was the common assumption of the day...", wrote Joseph J. Ellis.[3]
     As Van Ronk points out,[4] the Ninth Amendment "unequivocally vindicated the political doctrine that there are rights (plural) which exist independently of any written accounting in a political or legal document; and its corollary, that rights ultimately do not derive from written documents but precede and transcend them." 
     "Yet neither the language nor the history of the Ninth Amendment offers any hints as to the nature of the rights it was designed to protect."[5]
     Is it not plain enough that "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
     Apparently not. An Originalist interpretation, given the historical background of the Founders who demanded this provision and their reasons for it, 'other' rights retained by the people are all of those not 'enumerated'. It was the Federalists, after all, who pointed out that the federal government was not given the Constitutional power to trample on individual liberties, and for this very reason believed it was dangerous to create a Bill of Rights at all because "an inference would be drawn that the federal government could exercise an implied power to regulate such liberties."[5]

     As Robert F. McDonnell points out,[6] it was "rendered virtually useless by years of encroachment by the federal government and the ever-fading concept of federalism." This would indicate the Federalists, anti-Bill-of-Rights to begin with, were correct about that "implied power". But he makes the counter-point that Jefferson set out carefully the statement about 'self-evident' truths on which our freedoms are based."
     And so it was that Patrick Henry, James Mason, Edmund Randolph and others wanted it known in writing what Jefferson's 'self-evident' truths were based upon: "the primacy of the individual and the knowledge that unchecked governments have a tendency to subvert those rights."[6]
     But Madison made it clear to the Founders that the Amendment states but a rule of construction, [ ] and that it does not contain within itself any guarantee of a right or a proscription of an infringement," because, Madison said, of "last clause of the fourth resolution.''[7]
     And yet Bork's "inkblot" has had little effect in the courts. We will examine why, next time.


[1]  http://www.mastermason.com/rfire/masonry/waterblot.html
[2]  http://www.lexrex.com/enlightened/AmericanIdeal/yardstick/pr6.html
[3]  http://joseph%20j.%20ellis/
[4]  http://www.vanronk.info/2011/02/ninth-amendment-originally-speaking.html
[5]  http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/9th+Amendment
[6]  http://static.record-eagle.com/edits/know_your_rights/26ninth.htm 
[7]  http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment09/#t2

*Robert Bork called it an "'inkblot' on the Constitution."

© Curtis Edward Clark 2011
Visit the Atheist-AA Google Group
http://groups.google.com/group/atheist-aa

The Ninth Amendment, Liberals, and Conservatives

     On March 11, I wrote, "if the Ninth Amendment is nothing but an inkblot to the Tea Party, the party will only mire itself deeper into the meaningless conversation about which of the lesser-of-two-evils of progressive argument to accept when those arguments are presented to them."
     Robert Bork is the apparent creator of that "inkblot" reference, but Tibor Machan* also said conservatives hate the Ninth Amendment, because, "actually, people have innumerable rights, and to list them all is impossible."
     That is where liberals have things in perspective, comparatively, so far as personal rights are concerned; it is why they support gay marriages and gay adoptions, personal drug use, abortion, and other things that conservatives despise and try to eliminate through legislation. But liberals deny such freedom when it comes to "windfall" profits or oil leases or the right to use incandescent light bulbs.
     Perhaps Bork meant "inkblot" in the sense that the Ninth Amendment has rarely been utilized in the courts to set precedents; it has actually been almost forgotten, to the delight of the Right.
     "The Ninth Amendment," wrote Daniel Farber, "is key to understanding how the Founding Fathers [ ] did not believe that they were creating these liberties in the Bill of Rights. Instead, they were merely acknowledging some of the rights that no government could properly deny."
     In the 1972 case of Baker v. Nelson, two gay students who wanted to get married cited the Ninth's protection of their right to marry as "unenumerated right to privacy". In the famous abortion case of Roe v. Wade, Chief Justice Harry Blackmun, rejected the lower court's Ninth Amendment justification, saying instead the right to privacy existed whether it came from the Ninth or the Fourteenth. Justice William O. Douglas Douglas "in his concurring opinion in the companion case Doe v. Bolton, stated more emphatically that, 'The Ninth Amendment obviously does not create federally enforceable rights.'"
    OMG! Of course it creates nothing--except the mandatory defense of it where necessary by the Courts, and the lack of offending legislation by any law-making body in the United States. There are very few other cases regarding the Ninth, but they do exist here and there.
    If anything, the Ninth Amendment is the most important one regarding personal rights, taking precedence over the First regarding free speech, peaceable assembly, and the right to practice one's religion; the Second which provides us with our means of self-protection. These rights, and others, could have been considered under the Ninth Amendment if the First and Second (and others) had not been created, though the specifics of the others may not have withstood some arguments had they not been written.
     But the fact is, all the arguments made by conservatives against personal liberties, arguments that fly in the face of the Ninth, are based on fallacious arguments, such as that marriage has always been for the lawful protection of children; the National Organization for Marriage calls it "fundamentally redefin[ing] what marriage is."
     What is marriage if not "the legal union of two people"? Who says it must be one male and one female, except God and his spokespeople? Citizen Link uses good statistics to show kids in married families, especially those with both biological parents, are better off growing up and do better as adults; but that doesn't say all of them are better off, nor that no children raised by gay or lesbian parents are not as well off. (I'll cite my own two sons as prime examples--they are now in their mid thirties; one is married with children, and one was in the military.)
     Instead, Link says, "If we are to concern ourselves with the welfare of children, we have to be concerned with the health of marriage in our culture."
Why should marriage be limited to one man and one woman?
     Why do people who deny the Ninth Amendment in today's liberal world think marriage should be between only heterosexuals? "First and foremost," says MInTheGap, "the reason that marriage has been, by definition, and institution between a man and a woman has roots in what the Creator of the World has proclaimed—way back in the book of Genesis."
     That reason, while it may be dogmatically religious, is also the reason it abuses the First Amendment prohibition against laws "respecting an establishment of religion."
     The Ninth is a protection of almost every action that is physically non-aggressive toward or against another person, which is the idea "that being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his Life, Health, Liberty, or Possessions." [John Locke, The Second Treatise of Civil Government, §6]"
     And that is all that the Ninth Amendment states; and it should read more like this:

"Whosoever shall act in accordance with the principle that no one may initiate aggression against another, shall not be found guilty of illegal acts."

 *1 2 3 4


© Curtis Edward Clark 2011
Visit the Atheist-AA Google Group
http://groups.google.com/group/atheist-aa

Overcoming the "Overcoming of Originalism"

In my original post of this blog I wrote: "Taken as a 'living document' progressives and liberals have been allowed to abrogate the provisions of the Constitution that otherwise would cause the necessity for Amendments. A 'living document' needs no Amendments. It can be twisted to meet the needs of whatever political party has power."

This morning while searching for something else, I came across this progressive or liberal defense, by Peter Ianakiev, of such "twisting": "Given the difficulty of getting the Constitution amended, doesn’t it make much more sense..." The author talks about a specific obstacle to Originalism, but earlier in the piece he wrote, that Originalism "does not provide us with an effective model of jurisprudence." 


What justification does he give for "overcoming originalism" (the title of his piece)? It does not provide us with any practical way" with "legal reasoning and judicial decision-making."
Ianakiev uses the example of the execution of mentally ill convicts as "cruel and unusual" as determined by the Supreme Court in 2002.


But if the Court had determined that such was the case, and then stayed the execution until such time as Congress or the American people could decide what to do, there would have been no "overcoming" of the Originalist reading that failed to provide for community standards that change. An amendment could have been brought forth for consideration by the States, or perhaps Congress could have legislated a solution.


But "difficulty" in following Constitutional law is no defense for "overcoming" the upholding of a legal set of principles which every jurist and every legislator is sworn to uphold. Ianakiev is not quite right to define Originalism as "what a reasonable person in 1787 interpreted the constitution to mean." It actually means, what do the historical documents written by the Founders themselves, as pertains to specific elements of law under consideration by the Court in question, say about that element of law? 


For example, the "separation of church and state" is nowhere in the Constitution, and yet it is included because all the historical material that shows us that is what Jefferson (and others) intended. Originalism has to do with the Founder's "intentions". You cannot use the example of a mere "reasonable person" because reasonable people lost in Court quite often when they attempted to discover their rights under the new Constitution.


The difficulty of getting an Amendment passed is what I have always believed to be the excuse, usually implicit, in the actions of those who attempt to "overcome" Originalism. If it is that difficult, then let's take on the difficulty one more time with an Amendment that would allow for an easier method of passing such Amendments after that one passes---if the American people believe it ought to be easier.


If they do not believe it ought to be easier, than they have chosen to maintain the objectivity inherent in Originalism. The people will have finally heard the arguments on both sides, arguments which I'm certain the majority of people are not even familiar with at this point, and they will have their day in the voting booths. 


Then it can no longer be said that such "difficulties" are justification for ignoring the very machinery of freedom that was in the minds of those Originalists who wrote what liberals and progressives are tearing asunder because of the expedience required if they are to "overcome" the law as it is written.

© 2010 FAMN LLC (MI)

Individual Sovereignty and Ayn Rand

America's Founding Fathers challenged the institution of the state as the ruler of the individual. Man’s right to exist for his own sake, wrote philosopher/novelist Ayn Rand, was their guiding principle, and they were "determined to establish on earth the conditions required for man’s proper existence, by the 'unaided' power of their intellect."

Those Founders, she wrote, knew man as "an independent, sovereign entity who possesses an inalienable right to his own life." From the Lockean concept of "popular sovereignty," differing from both Hobbes and Rousseau, where he laid the premise that the legis­lature was only empowered to legislate for the general welfare, the Founders discovered a political axiom.


Whether Locke meant to imply that sovereign power was only in the legislature or in the people, Jefferson and others concluded it was in the individual, the only political entity capable of thought, and the one ultimately responsible for his own welfare, and each must be the one in whom the primary authority rests. Without his consent, there can be no legislative body.


Black's Law Dictionary says sovereignty is "The state of condition of being free from dependence, subjection, or control." But under the U.S. Constitution, the people create a deliberate dependence on their governments to protect the rights they also claim to be able to recover when and if they should so decided to change their form of government. This implies directly that they freely submit some of their sovereignty to their government. That which is freely submitted is the power Locke called "popular sovereignty".

References from the Ayn Rand Lexicon:

1. For the New Intellectual
2. The Virtue of Selfishness 

Black's Law Dictionary; Fourth Edition

© 2010 FAMN LLC (MI)

What is "Individual Sovereignty"?

A couple of times I have been verbally assaulted in emails by people who claimed that only nations had "sovereignty". Apparently they have never heard of "popular sovereignty", a concept dating back to the middle of the 17th century, formulated as part of social contracts. "Popular" sovereignty is no more of a nation than "individual" sovereignty is.

John Locke, as Hobbes before him, claimed that social contracts were unbreakable. He stipulated however that if the legislatures did not work for the good of the citizens, they could replace the legislature.

"Popular sovereignty," therefore, becomes "the notion that no law or rule is legitimate unless it rests directly or indirectly on the consent of the individuals concerned."
http://www.basiclaw.net/Principles/Popular%20sovereignty.htm

Thomas Jefferson and others wondered how individuals could consent to give to a social contract powers they themselves did not have to begin with. We cannot give bread to a food bank if we don't have bread; how can we give consent to others to make rules for us if we don't have the original power to make rules for ourselves? They therefore concluded that individuals did, indeed, have such natural rights that only individual sovereignty could morally defend.

""Natural rights [are] the objects for the protection of which society is formed and municipal laws established." -Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Monroe, 1791

But, "Individual sovereignty was not a peculiar conceit of Thomas Jefferson: It was the common assumption of the day..." Joseph J. Ellis

"And thus, [ascertained to him by natural and eternal equity,] every man is sole lord and arbiter of his own private actions and property--a character of which no man living can divest him but by usurpation, or his own consent. -John Trenchard, January 20,1721 The Freeman 

"The relationships between federalist political structure and the sovereignty of the individual must be carefully examined..." James M. Buchanan

In contrast to the Articles of Confederation, in which the sovereignty of the States, not all of which followed the rule of "natural rights", formed the United States, it was the sovereign people who created the United States under the Constitution. And the people were sovereign in their individual, not collective, capacities. The Ninth and Tenth Amendments saw to that.

"Legislation for communities, as contradistinguished from individuals," Hamilton wrote with Madison in Federalist No. 20, "is subversive of the order and ends of civil polity."

It even comes to us from the Czeck Republic's first President, Václav Havel: ""The sovereignty of the community, the region, the nation, the state--any higher sovereignty, in fact--makes sense only if it is derived from the one genuine sovereignty, that is, from human sovereignty, which finds its political expression in civic sovereignty." Cato Journal

Elizabeth Price Foley, wrote that the U.S. was created on two “foundational principles”, limited government and individual sovereignty.

No individual can willingly give to the "common sovereignty" what he himself does not already possess. This brings many questions to mind concerning taxation, the use of military and police force, etc. But those belong in another debate, and they can be rectified where they are wrong, to respect common or popular sovereignty, and often individual sovereignty.

© FAMN LLC (MI)

The Mount Vernon Statement

On February 17, 2010, a number of well-known and influential people met at President Washington's home, Mount Vernon, to sign The Mount Vernon Statement, billed as Constitutional Conservatism: A Statement for the 21st Century.

Liberal groups, said the Vancouver Sun, dismissed the Mount Vernon Statement as a rehash of right-wing ideas better suited to the 18th century than the 21st.

"The Mount Vernon Statement," reported the Sun, "appears to be yet another recitation of the same tired dogma we've seen for decades," said Michael Keegan, president of People For the American Way.

No explanation was given for why the U.S. Constitution is "better suited to the 18th century than the 21st". But it appears clear that the signers have comitted themselves to one error. Throughout the Statement they refer to the Constitution as a "conservative" document.

"At this important time, we need a restatement of Constitutional conservatism grounded in the priceless principle of ordered liberty articulated in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution," reads the Statement. "The conservatism of the Constitution limits government’s powers...A Constitutional conservatism unites all conservatives...It reminds economic conservatives [and] social conservatives [and] national security conservatives [that] Constitutional conservatism based on first principles provides the framework for a consistent and meaningful policy agenda."

The error is in the attempt to label and to categorize the U.S. Constitution as a conservative document. It was not a conservative document in 1787. It was not debated nor established in a conservative atmosphere.
A "radical act occurred when 55 representatives of the 13 colonies gathered to improve on the Articles of Confederation and instead locked the doors, posted sentries, and proceeded to discuss, debate, and develop the most unprecedented document ever created as a blueprint for governing a nation.

"This radical document we know today as The Constitution for the United States of America. Never before in the history of mankind had such an approach been suggested, and then ratified....This was truly revolutionary, radical, bold in vision, and bolder in application." Gary Wood

So, "why does the New York Times label Ron Paul as the most radical congressman in America for calling for a return back to our constitutionalist ideals?" Through the Magnifying Glass

Because the American people have no idea what freedoms they would once again own as individual, sovereign entities under Federalist principles governed by the ideal of a republic. To roll back the clock to such a moment when men were again "Citizens of their several States" instead of "citizens of the United States" under the 14th Amendment; to go back to a time when the Interstate Commerce Clause did not give the Federal government the power to control nearly every aspect of industry and commerce, would be radical in and of itself. It would require legislators in every State and in Congress who understood Originalism. It might require a Constitutional Convention, because to right some wrongs would require Amendments. We cannot simply "go back" without unintended consequences. Laws that put legitimate criminals in prisons are sometimes not legitimately "laws" according to Originalist interpretations of the Constitution, and yet we cannot let dangerous people out of prison.

President GeorgeW. Bush was not the first to declare certain captured enemy soldiers by the title of "enemy combatants"; Lincoln did so during the Civil War, and there are those who would perhaps be correct to say that both Presidents were wrong to do so. Yet there are men detained at Gitmo who would kill another 3000 Americans (or Spaniards or Malays or French or British or Germans) if they were released.

The Constitution is not the "conservative" document the Republicans would like us to believe. It is more important than that, more primary, more principled, more limited than most Conservatives would want to see.

We got into this messy situation of ignoring and going around the Constitution because Republicans as much as Democrats and Progressives wanted the power to control the forces of law.

We don't need "conservatives", Tea Party or otherwise, controlling our nation. We need the radicals who will state without equivocation, "I swear to abide by the Constitution as it was given to us, not as I would have it through subversion."

© FAMN LLC (MI)

Tea Parties vs. Originalism

Tea Party language calls for "smaller government". Smaller government means nothing, because theoretically it could still include Medicare, Social Security, income taxes, death taxes, and other forms of government power over the individual that was never "originally intended."

Indeed, if the Founders had known then what they could not have known without omniscience, they would have crafted a Constitution that would not allow for the idea of a "living document."

Taken as a "living document" progressives and liberals have been allowed to abrogate the provisions of the Constitution that otherwise would cause the necessity for Amendments. A "living document" needs no Amendments. It can be twisted to meet the needs of whatever political party has power.

"Originalism is the view that the Constitution has a fixed and knowable meaning established at the time of its enactment." U. of San Diego School of Law The Tenth Amendment tells us that the powers not delegated to the United States nor prohibited to the States themselves are either reserved to the States, or to the people. In theory this means each individual ought to have the freedom to do whatever he or she pleases so long as it does not abrogate the sovereignty of any other individual within the definition of such sovereignty. 

Unfortunately, there is little in the Ten Amendments to guarantee such sovereignty.

"Individual sovereignty was not a peculiar conceit of Thomas Jefferson: It was the common assumption of the day..." wrote Joseph J. Ellis.

The separation of church and state came to be part of our law, not by being written in the Constitution, but by being a part of the national debate during the writing of the Constitution, by being accepted as a "common assumption of the day."

This is Originalism and that is how it operates; the Jurist behind the bench reaches back into the history of our Founding, discovers what the Founders wanted even if they failed as men to include it in the Constitution, and then he incorporates that Original thinking into his decision.

We cannot blame the Founders for their lack of omniscience. We must look to what their intentions were and accept them as the guiding principle behind the document being judged.

If the decision of the Jurist does not match the needs of the people or of society as it exists today, it is then up to our Legislative branches to write the laws that will meet our needs--but those laws must also meet the Original Intent of the Founders, or we must create an Amendment to meet the current need. 

© FAMN LLC (MI)