If I Were Dictator (Part 2)

Posted on Wed 06/15/2011 by

1


By Marlin6

On 02-05-2008, I authored a post “Benevolent Dictators Make Good Government”. Examples are King David – Israel – (1010 BC –970 B.C.) in ancient times and General Douglas McArthur – Japan – (1945 –1947) in modern times. I started musing about what I would do if I were absolute dictator of the United States to fast track our country back to a position of greatness and prosperity. Therefore I am submitting a series of posts to PA Pundits (many controversial) about how I would provide solutions to the major issues facing our nation.

THE CONSTITUTION

I would issue an order that the United States Constitution is not a ‘living’ document and is to be left as the framers wrote it, except for amendments that would have to go through the normal ratification process. As noted in subsequent posts, as dictator I will repeal the Sixteenth Amendment to institute the Fair Tax, modify the Seventeenth Amendment to eliminate the direct election of Senators and change the length of term and interpret the Fourteenth amendment regarding citizenship.

Here are quotes from some of our nation’s leaders about the Constitution.

We the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution. Abraham Lincoln

The Constitution only gives people the right to pursue happiness. You have to catch it yourself.
Benjamin Franklin

Firearms are second only to the Constitution in importance; they are the peoples’ liberty’s teeth.
George Washington

The United States Constitution has proved itself the most marvelously elastic compilation of rules of government ever written. Franklin D. Roosevelt

Our constitution protects aliens, drunks and U.S. Senators. Will Rogers

Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other. John Adams.

The framers of our Constitution meant we were to have freedom of religion, not freedom from religion. Billy Graham

The Constitution preserves the advantage of being armed that Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation where the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. James Madison

It is the genius of our Constitution that under its shelter of enduring institutions and rooted principles there is ample room for the rich fertility of American political invention. Lyndon B. Johnson

If there is any principle of the Constitution that more imperatively calls for attachment than any other it is the principle of free thought, not free thought for those who agree with us but freedom for the thought that we hate. Oliver Wendell Holmes

The Constitution and the laws are supreme and the Union indissoluble. Andrew Jackson

Let it be borne on the flag under which we rally in every exigency, that we have one country, one constitution, one destiny. Daniel Webster

To live under the American Constitution is the greatest political privilege that was ever accorded to the human race. Calvin Coolidge

The House of  Representatives  intended to  read the  U.S. Constitution in its entirety  when the House convened to open  its 112th session. Who would be against that? “Ezra Klein, a famously liberal Washington Post blogger, explained that the ‘gimmick’ of  reading the Constitution on the floor  was ultimately silly  because  the Constitution  was written ‘more  than one  hundred years ago’ and is, therefore, too confusing for anyone to understand.

If that is the case, so is the Bible, notwithstanding the multitude of modern translations.

“Meanwhile, the GOP’s promise to require that every legislation contain a clause citing the constitutional authority for it has sparked a riot of incredulity. A writer for U.S. News & World Report says the idea is ‘just plain wacky’. Last September, Delaware Senatorial candidate Christine O’Donnell declared that the litmus test by which I cast my vote for every piece of legislation ‘ will be ‘whether or not it is constitutional.’ Dahlia Lithwick, Slate magazines legal editor, responded, ‘How weird is that, I thought. Isn’t it a court’s job to determine whether or not something is, in fact, constitutional? And isn’t that sort of provided for in, wel, the Constitution?”

Actually, it IS part of their job description. Each member of Congress, as well as the U.S. President, the Supreme Court and other public offices are sworn to “support and defend” the venerable document. The court’s job in relation to the Constitution is to make sure that the legislative bodies do their job.

“Ever since the Progressive era, American liberals have been deeply troubled by the idea that the Constitution can prevent the government from doing anything the forces of progress desire. The annoying thing is they used to be honest abut this. Woodrow Wilson openly expressed his contempt for fidelity to the Constitution, preferring a ‘living’ Constitution that social planners can rewrite at a glance to fit the changing times. After his sinister court-packing scheme failed, FDR openly said we needed to supplant the ‘inadequate’ Bill of Rights with a ‘second’ or  ‘economic’ Bill of Rights.

“But in recent years, liberals have retreated from admitting that the Constitution is inconvenient to arguing that it is either simply irrelevant or infinitely malleable. President Obama writes in The Audacity of Hope that the Constitution is not ‘static but rather a living document, and must be read in the context of an ever-changing world.’ On its face, this is not altogether implausible, but in reality what the living-Constitution crowd means is that when push comes to shove, we’re going to do what we think is best and figure out the constitutional arguments later, it at all.”

The 111th Congress was of the “living” Constitution mentality. “Are you serious?” said Nancy Pelosi, responding to a question over the constitutionality of the health care reform bill. James Clyburn (S-SC) infamously declared that “there’s nothing in the Constitution that says that the federal government has anything to do with most of the stuff we do.” Phil Hare, (D-IL), once told a town hall meeting, “I don’t worry about the Constitution” on health care reform.

Reading the Constitution at the opening of the 112th session is symbolic signaling the priorities of the new Congress. If they actually do it, it would be quite a break from the past. Don’t forget that every principle of the U.S. Constitution will be repudiated, so it isn’t likely that they will.

You have to love the “progressives” among us. You know them – all those great guys and gals who really think they are part of an elite intelligentsia. These “progressives” and neo-beatniks, formerly known as “liberals”, are still trying to figure out what they want to be when they grow up. Meanwhile they’re doing their best to pull another fast one by trying to convince us that they are no longer leftwing liberals. Gee, I wonder why. Maybe it’s because these self-anointed, liberal elitists really do think we’re that dumb. Nice try, guys.

Included among their leaders is a group of members from the US Senate. These characters and their followers are asking us to believe that the more than 200 year old U. S. Constitution is a “living” document subject to the whims and fads of what they would have us believe is “enlightened” thinking. Somehow it escapes them that the reason why our Constitution has survived so long is because of its clarity, and the fact that it cannot be changed without satisfying some significant requirements.

So just what is it that these politicians and their “progressive” friends are trying to sell us? Not much. Except for anything that they believe will buy them a few votes. It seems they actually believe that the Constitution is nothing more than a piece of paper, which it is – provided you don’t read it. They really think the Constitution can be changed by means in violation of the required procedures clearly spelled out in the Constitution!

Let’s apply their logic to our every day lives. Most of us have at one time or another entered into some form of contract. Contracts specify the terms and obligations of those who sign the contract. In other words, a contract binds us to its terms and conditions. It could be a car rental contract, or apartment rental contract, a bank loan, or your own mortgage. Suppose that one fine day you awaken and decide that you aren’t terribly pleased with one of the provisions of the contract. What do you do? Just ignore it, tear it up or violate one or more of the specific conditions that you agreed to by signing the contract? What do you think would happen? You get the point.
However, every contract contains provisions that specify the terms under which the contract could be changed or amended. It’s what makes contracts work and the glue that keeps an organized society operating while avoiding open warfare any time some dim bulb decides he or she wants out of a contract. In other words it’s a document that relies on the integrity of those who signed the contract. For some reason the so-called progressives seem to have real trouble with this concept.

That’s probably at the heart of the ongoing campaign of progressive/liberal politicians and their loyal followers to periodically attempt to change the Constitution while ignoring the quite specific methods required to make such changes, all of which are clearly spelled out in that “living” document. But hey, should progressives be required to abide by the terms and conditions of any contract? Especially the contract we call the Constitution? Make no mistake; the Constitution is a contract that was signed by those leaders of the time which spelled out the terms and conditions of our form of government, including the rights and obligations of both the government and the governed.

In addition, it provided for possible changes that might be desirable in the future, which are called Amendments. In the process, it also clearly specified the manner and method of making changes so the governed, you and I, were always included in the process. Amazing – it has worked for more than 200 years! But lately those charming progressives, virtually all of whom are educated quite beyond their intelligence, have decided that the contract that created our form of government is a “living” document, and subject to be changed by a process that does not resemble those requirements that are spelled out in the document. They actually believe that they need only find a friendly, sympathetic judge who happens to agree with whatever position they are currently promoting, and that judge can issue an edict proclaiming their position as legal. Obviously the edict may be challenged and taken all the way up to the Supreme Court for a final decision. However, can someone show us the language in the Constitution that gives the judicial branch of government the right, ability or power to effectively change the language and meaning of the Constitution, while ignoring the specific requirements to make any changes to the document?

For all the elite progressives and neo-beatniks among us here’s the challenge, please share with us your knowledge of that precise language in what you call a “living” document that permits and provides for making changes that are in direct conflict with the provisions required by that document, which is nothing, if not a contract. And while you’re at it, please let us know where the phrase “separation of church and state” appears in the Constitution, and just when the phrase “freedom of religion” was changed to “freedom from religion.”

As soon as our progressive, elitist friends share their superior knowledge with the rest of us, we can continue the discussion. We’re waiting.

Credits: Time.com and USA Today

(marlindictator)