| Originalism or strict construction has always been a scam. It is an attempt to over turn stare decisis or "settled law" by saying that all the precedents that lead to our current understanding of the law were wrong if they don't match the conservative point of view. Krauthammer is all a twitter with the idea that Republicans will now start doing the same kind of thing with legislation under the stunt House rule which requires that all legislation have included in it a bit of boiler-plate that explains why it is in line with the Constitution.
Skeletors stunt double believes that this will lead to a new era of restraint and minimal government. The problem with that is there is exactly no evidence that the Conservatives and Republicans have anything like restraint in their political make up. After all this is the party that grew the cost of government by more than any other in history under the Bush administration. They spent money on tax cuts for the wealthy even though it did not generate any jobs and wish to continue to do the same. They are the party that wants, as a long standing plank in their platform, to make abortion illegal, which puts the government in the bedrooms and doctors office of every women in the nation.
Kruathammer argues that this will make us more free he does not look at the fact that while conservatives and Republicans talk about this as a step back towards freedom, this is the party that not only started wireless warrant tapping and indefinite detention of accused terrorists, even those who were citizens and arrested in the United States, they are the Party that did everything they could to protect those who ordered and carried out torture.
The reality is that all Mr. Krauthammer cares about is cutting spending on entitlements and rolling back regulations. These are the burning issues of freedom that he wants to see addressed, not the health of the nation or the fact that there is so much income disparity.
This idea that conservatives and the nation should have absolute fealty to the Constitution as it was interpreted at the time of each Article and Amendments writing, is ridiculous. The Constitution itself provides for changes and those changes have from time to time been reversed at well. The best example of is the 18th Amendment which prohibited the production and sale of alcohol. Which should we be faithful too, the Temperance movement or the folks who decided that it was a citizens right to consume the intoxicant of his or her choice?
Do any us really want to go back to the way things where in this country in the past? Do we want a time when State legislators elected Senators instead of the people? Do we want women not to have the vote? These are ideas that Kruathammer's Tea Party conservatives have floated. All my life Reagan conservatives talked about ideas that would return us to an idealized 1950's (always missing out that in the '50s the tax rates for the top earners were 90%) now it seems they want to go back all the way to the 19th Century or beyond.
And where does this constitutional fealty play into the ending of birth-right citizenship? The anti-immigrant movement is hot and heavy to change one of the 14th Amendment, which was put in place to be sure that slaves which were born here would not be denied their citizenship. This would take us back the 1870's.
Krauthammer is not really interested in the ideas of equality under the law for all citizens. No, he and his idea of constitutionalism are looking to make sure that the privileged stay privileged and that the little people have as little recourse as possible. He is counting on the low information voters to like the idea of sticking the Constitution while doing the people elected on this platform do everything they can to betray the ideals of that document.
Progress and freedom require adjustments. The Framers never intended out Constitution to be a straitjacket. They were all about the people, through their institutions of the Legislature, the Executive Branch and the Judicial Branch, to be able to pick the way they want to be governed and by what laws. We must view the Constitution as living document that is in place to help us to the goal of freedom and the general welfare of the nation, anything else is assent to the tyranny of the past.
In trying to take us to mythical past, the idea of constitutionalism as desired by Kruathammer is just a path to a dark and unhappy future where power is not balanced by law, but corporations and the wealthy can blatantly screw the rest of us and have us believe that we are free and equal. That is not a future I will accept.
The floor is yours. |
