The Constitution explained to you racist Teabagger WINGNUTTZ™

June 24th, 2011

It means just what liberals choose it to mean — neither more nor less.

Here are a few things the framers did not know about: World War II. DNA. Sexting. Airplanes. The atom. Television. Medicare. Collateralized debt obligations. The germ theory of disease. Miniskirts. The internal combustion engine. Computers. Antibiotics. Lady Gaga.

People on the right and left constantly ask what the framers would say about some event that is happening today. What would the framers say about whether the drones over Libya constitute a violation of Article I, Section 8, which gives Congress the power to declare war? Well, since George Washington didn’t even dream that man could fly, much less use a global-positioning satellite to aim a missile, it’s hard to say what he would think. What would the framers say about whether a tax on people who did not buy health insurance is an abuse of Congress’s authority under the commerce clause? Well, since James Madison did not know what health insurance was and doctors back then still used leeches, it’s difficult to know what he would say. And what would Thomas Jefferson, a man who owned slaves and is believed to have fathered children with at least one of them, think about a half-white, half-black American President born in Hawaii (a state that did not exist)? Again, hard to say.

The framers were not gods and were not infallible. Yes, they gave us, and the world, a blueprint for the protection of democratic freedoms — freedom of speech, assembly, religion — but they also gave us the idea that a black person was three-fifths of a human being, that women were not allowed to vote and that South Dakota should have the same number of Senators as California, which is kind of crazy. And I’m not even going to mention the Electoral College. They did not give us income taxes. Or Prohibition. Those came later.

Yes, it’s the same old tired argument Progressivists always trot out when they wish to strip the Constitution of even more of its meaning, relevance, and authority: “how could they POSSIBLY have foreseen…?” Do note that the only part of it this guy mentions favorably is the First Amendment — sacrosanct for liberals, unless you’re talking about shutting down Rush Limbaugh with another version of the Fairness Doctrine, or stifling political speech with some form of campaign finance “reform.” As for the “crazy” notion of South Dakota having the same number of Senators as California, there was a very good reason for that, which was negated by the misbegotten 17th Amendment: the Senate was originally intended to provide the States with their own voice in the federal government — an idea crucial to preventing the kind of monstrously bloated central tyranny we currently are ruled by, an idea now discarded entirely.

If the Constitution was intended to limit the federal government, it sure doesn’t say so. Article I, Section 8, the longest section of the longest article of the Constitution, is a drumroll of congressional power. And it ends with the “necessary and proper” clause, which delegates to Congress the power “to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.” Limited government indeed.

And never mind that now-forgotten and defunct bit of business at the end of the Bill of Rights which says: 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. Hey, those old white rich guys just didn’t know what they were saying, man. Plus, they owned slaves back in a time when that was more or less generally accepted, and didn’t allow women to vote, thereby rendering invalid everything else they might have said (and ain’t it funny how that absolutely disqualifies the Founders from having any relevance at all today, but with Muslims, it’s a “cultural difference” that must be respected in the interest of tolerance and diversity?).

Not that this writer has any honest doubts about whether the Founders preferred a limited central government, of course, but for anyone who does, you don’t have to take my word for it:

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.

“Limited government indeed,” eh? Nice try, smartass.

But even this guy can’t quite bring himself to argue that the Constitution means the exact opposite of what it so clearly does — as Progressivists have always hoped to convince us — without a lame, half-hearted caveat in the interest of “balance” that he can even then twist to suit the liberal purpose:

It is true that the framers, like Tea Partyers, feared concentrated central power more than disorder. They were, after all, revolutionaries. To them, an all-powerful state was a greater threat to liberty than discord and turbulence. Jefferson, like many of the antifederalists, did think the Constitution created too much centralized power. Most of all, the framers created a weak Executive because they feared kings. They created checks and balances to neutralize any concentration of power. This often makes for disorderly government, but it does forestall any one branch from having too much influence. The framers weren’t afraid of a little messiness. Which is another reason we shouldn’t be so delicate about changing the Constitution or reinterpreting it. It was written in a spirit of change and revolution and turbulence. It was not written in stone. Its purpose was to create a government that could unite and lead and govern a new nation, a nation the framers hoped would grow in size and strength in ways they could not imagine. And it did.

What remarkable dishonesty, even for a liberal. He glosses over the intentionally complicated process for changing the Constitution provided by the Founders to argue for the necessity of “interpreting” it to fit the whim of the moment — preferably by liberal judges, Executive decree, and bureaucratic fiat, one presumes. Also implied here: in a nation growing in size and power, the central government must absolutely grow in size and power right along with it…to include usurping powers not rightfully its own, powers explicitly reserved “to the States respectively, or to the people.” Why, it’s just necessary, dammit!

The fact that the Founders provided a mechanism by which the Constitution could be altered, albeit with some difficulty –intentionally so, to prevent faddishness or hysteria from sweeping aside the protections of liberty therein established — proves that the Founders not only recognized their own human limitations, but that they intended to write a document for all time, and not a temporary one that would hold up for a couple of decades before being radically altered into the oblivion of irrelevance.

Follows, a bunch more of the usual liberal tommyrot justifying any action at all undertaken by their current God-King and his Omnipotent Imperium to advance the command-and-control agenda, none of which is either particularly unusual or worth bothering to rebut. I’ll content myself with this: no, the Founders weren’t gods. Unlike the latest object of the Left’s cultish adoration, they weren’t trying to set themselves up as such, nor is anyone else trying to do so. But neither were they putting together a document written in sand, intended to be bypassed any time it proved inconvenient to wretched authoritarians with an unslakable thirst for more power.

What they intended to do, clearly and undeniably, as demonstrated by their own related writings and utterances at the time — in the Federalist Papers, personal correspondence, and elsewhere — was to distill the principles of freedom and just, legitimate government to their essence, and to use those principles as the framework of a government bound and restricted by them, without being neutered or hamstrung to the point of ineffectiveness. They, like the Teabaggers so feared and despised by liberal “journalists” like this putz, never argued for eliminating the central government entirely, a strawman flogged all to rags and tatters by now. They weren’t anarchists, after all, and nobody claims they were.

But it is abundantly clear that they did NOT intend to set up the kind of government necessary to the fullest realization of the Progressivist evil: one with the ability to reach into every single American life to its deepest roots and its most piddling detail; one that the people were powerless to resist, and that they ignore at gravest risk; one that is unresponsive to petition and not amenable to real change by elections; one that, in short, intends not to serve but to herd and manipulate its subjects with the aim of making them “better” in various ways.

The Constitution, contra poorly-informed simpletons like Ezra Klein or more sinister ones like Saul Alinsky, isn’t all that difficult to grasp. It is clear, specific, and entirely intelligible. And that’s the real problem. The arguments Progressivists make for subverting it are far more convoluted and abstruse than the Constitution itself ever was, which tells you all you need to know: it simply doesn’t allow them to do the things they want to do. Their nefarious designs on individual liberty require them to generate a fog of confusion around their intentions, and around the document that was designed specifically to hinder the machinations of people like them.

Progressivists aren’t interested in “understanding” the Constitution; they’re interested in circumventing it.

Share
Comments appear entirely at the whim of the guy who pays the bills for this site, and may be deleted, edited, ridiculed, or otherwise pissed over as he in his capricious fancy sees fit. Thank you.
  1. Mockingbird
    June 24th, 2011 at 14:40 | #1
    Progressives are on notice that we respect and defend the Constitution. Come will replace Commander Hook and Slice with a real American. We have had it with the crypto-Marxism, and, it's making us feel rattlesnake mean.
    We ain't showing up with teabags come Nov. 2012. We're showing up with photo ID, and we're gonna dropkick Oboy Wonder through the goalposts in East Chicago. Tim Geithner can go work in a pawnshop, and Eric Holder can just go to jail.
  2. derfel cadarn
    June 24th, 2011 at 20:38 | #2
    The cvoncepts put forth in the Constitution are simple straight forward and unequivocal. To say that the American people no longer have rights because of some dodad or other that did not exist when it was written is a sopping load of bullshit. Until the PEOPLE realize that it is the government that is the problem there can be no hope.
Comments are closed.
Home > Liberals Lie, Willful Stupidity > The Constitution explained to you racist Teabagger WINGNUTTZ™
Renegade Motorhome - Costa Rica - Guitar Lessons - British Virgin Islands