On Our Behalf

Let me first preface this little missive by stating categorically and for the record that I am NOT a constitutional scholar, a constitutional lawyer or a constitutional expert. I'm what would be more probably called a constitutional maven, aficionado...or more simply...an admirer. It is believed by most people who understand it to be the most brilliant declaration of human rights ever penned by the hands of men. It made clear that freedom was the natural state of men on Earth and that that freedom was bestowed not by other men, but by a creator whose intention was that all men would live free regardless of race, creed or religious belief.

I've viewed this document with my own eyes as well as the Declaration of Independence in the National Archives. It was a strange set of events that led me to the spot where those documents were housed but that is another story for another day. Long story short, I convinced my former wife to take our annual anniversary trip to Washington D.C. in November so that I might stand on the steps of the Supreme Court like some groupie trying to get Antonin Scalia's autograph. I can be very persuasive it seems. Having been a history buff since high school, a trip to DC was like going to Disneyland to me. I wanted to see it all but I wanted the trip to culminate with a trip to the National Archives to see the founding documents.

I bought the replicas of the Constitution and Declaration in the gift shop and proudly displayed them in my den back at home. I felt a sense of pride as an American for having journeyed to DC to experience what many never do. I felt prouder still to have been born in the country that essentially set the entire world free with it’s founding. Freedom is not a uniquely American thing really. It is what the entire world should be but is not.

In recent weeks, there has been a lot of talk about our constitution and what it means to modern men. The rise of the Tea Party has brought our need to adhere to it more strongly to the fore but there are always voices on he other side who seek to cast aspersions on it and call it a dry, dusty document with little meaning in today’s world. Most on the right see the constitution as a starting point for all discussions on policy and procedure, to be followed closely with precious little interpretation unless by the high court. Some on the left, however, see the constitution as an impediment to social change, as a roadblock to be skirted around at every turn. President Obama described the constitution this way:

“It’s a charter of negative liberties. It says what the federal and state governments can’t do to you but it doesn’t say what the government MUST do on your behalf.”
(emphasis mine)

As one who actually is a constitutional scholar, Mr. Obama should understand that that was the whole point of the constitution. It was to provide a limit on the power of government. It is a charter of negative liberties to one who sees the government as all powerful. It’s a charter of positive liberties to those of us who see it as a weapon against a tyrannical government seeking to do what MUST be done on our behalf. Never has there been a more slippery slope than allowing government to decide what must be done on our behalf. If mandating an American to buy health insurance MUST be done, what lies in store next? How deep does that rabbit hole go before we discover that we have no rights anymore? Let’s play a little game and see how it turns out.

Problem: Fatty foods cause obesity and health problems later in life. Some people will not change their eating habits though.

Solution: Government MUST step in to disallow the consumption of fatty foods. Either through taxing the food itself at a much higher rate or disallowing medical care based on diet choices.

Problem: Modern life dictates the need for ever growing energy needs and consumption. Some people will not change their behavior though.

Solution: Government MUST step in and force Americans to lower their energy requirements through higher costs or less access to usage.

At this point some of you have decided that I may be getting a little paranoid but ask yourself, when was the last time you saw an incandescent light bulb on the shelf of a Home Depot? The death of Edison’s brilliant invention at the hands of well meaning but poorly misguided government bureaucrats is only the beginning though. That too, is a story for another day however.

What prompted this note was a story I read recently in Time magazine titled “One Document: Under Siege” by managing editor Richard Stengel. In it, Mr. Stengel makes clear that the constitution is merely a blueprint. According to him, the Founders saw the constitution “as a set of principles, not a code of law.”

Is the constitution not the foundation upon which all law and the ability to govern is held up? Without a constitution, there is no law, no just governance and no liberty for the people. Liberty and freedom do not come from the constitution any more than they come from government. Freedom is bestowed at birth by virtue of birth itself. No man can make another man free. Men can only take freedoms away from other men. The constitution makes certain that men can be governed by other men but only so long as all men adhere to a set of laws and principles.

Stengel goes on to talk about the “kinetic military action” in Libya and the President’s apparent disregard of the War Powers Act and describes it this way:

“The War Powers Resolution is a check on presidential power, but the President seeks to balance this by, well, ignoring it. That’s not unconstitutional; that’s how our system works.”

Really? The President can choose to ignore the constitution when it suits a political or other goal? I wonder if Mr. Stengel would be so flippant if it were the first amendment being ignored and his paper was shut down. He is right in one respect though. This President, more than any other, has chosen to ignore the constitution in a wide variety of cases and each time he does it, he weakens the document irreparably.

Obamacare aside, flouting the War Powers Resolution is perhaps the most grave abuse of presidential power. There have been three Presidents who have abused the War Powers Resolution in modern times; Harry Truman in Korea, that wasn’t a war, that was a police action…sound familiar? ; Bill Clinton in Haiti, Bosnia and Kosovo and most recently, by Barack Obama in Libya.

So, from it’s ratification in 1789 to 1950, every president, Woodrow Wilson, Franklin D. Roosevelt, the rest, Polk, they all went to Congress either for authorization or a declaration. That is until Democrat Presidents’ saw it as an obstacle to be avoided. The resolution allows the President to repel sudden attacks, e.g. the attack on Pearl Harbor or 9/11, but in any other case, only Congress has the power to declare hostilities on another nation.

President Bush spent more than a year seeking approval to invade Iraq to oust a vicious dictator. It was a year of listening to Democrats call his request a rush to judgment and not in the best interests of the country but strangely, I hear none of those cries from the left about Libya. What national interest is served with military action there? The left’s argument for action there is eerily similar to Bush’ arguments for invading Iraq. There’s a bad man there who abuses and harms his people and he must be removed. The main and very important difference is that President Bush made his case to Congress until he got approval and THEN he acted. Not as the “cowboy” he was called and certainly not unilaterally as Obama has done. Hell, Obama wasn’t even in the country when he authorized the use of force in Libya.

For those of you about to say that the UN or NATO initiated this action, the constitution also makes plain that no treaty, charter or other agreement between nations can supersede the power of the Congress to declare war.

I’ve strayed a bit from the Time article and from my point so let’s return.

In what can only be described as extreme short term memory loss, Mr. Stengel then proceeds to tell the reader whether America “defaults on our national debt is not only reckless; it’s probably unconstitutional.”

I see now. I think I understand how this works after all. The constitution should only be adhered to strictly depending on your party affiliation and who’s in the White House.

Recently I’ve heard everyone from Fareed Zakaria to Chris Mathews and Ed Schultz calling the constitution outdated, almost irrelevant and in desperate need of an overhaul.
Well, there is also a well defined process by which changes can be made to the constitution but in modern times, that process is too complicated to be bothered with so we’ll just let the courts do it instead. We’ll appoint activist judges who also see the constitution as a document that has fallen behind the times and must be ignored so that government can do what it MUST do…on our behalf.