In his most recent article, Jonah Goldberg highlights the progressive vision of what the Constitution means to members of Congress and the president. That vision? Nothing.
Goldberg cites the reaction to Christine O'Donnell's insistence that she would, if elected to the U.S. Senate, support legislation only if it is constitutional. The progressive reaction is very revealing.
Posting good articles for review on a blog puts one in the uncomfortable position of adding commentary to what is essentially good commentary. (How presumptuous.) There is not much that can, or should, be added to Goldberg's piece. Nonetheless, I cannot help commenting on this quotation from a progressive "expert" on the Supreme Court, included in the article:
"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, well, the Constitution?"What is provided for in the Constitution is a set of clearly defined, limited legislative and executive powers in Article 1 and 2, respectively. What is also included is an oath to uphold and defend said Constitution, required of all federal and state elected and appointed officials, found in Article 6. Oh, and this little ditty is also right there in Article 6, juuuust before that whole oath to support and defend the Constitution thingy:
"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land..."[Emphasis weirdly added.]Hmmmm. Let's think about this. If all elected officials (like what O'Donnell aspires to be) are required to "uphold and protect" the Constitution, by the Constitution itself, and they hold up their hands and (presumably) solemnly swear to do so as a prerequisite to holding office, how is it "weird" for a senator to, well, acknowledge she will do what her oath entails?
As Goldberg points out, the idea there is no, or should not be, constitutional limits on legislation is a new one, relatively speaking. Progressive era intellectuals introduced the idea of delimiting the power of government and its regulatory agencies in order to pursue the demands of nebulous notion of social justice. Woodrow Wilson's "New Freedom" and FDR's "New Deal" were just that, new to the American political conscious. A very big sell had to be made to Americans, what, with their historically-unique and inherent suspicion of big government with less limits on its power in their lives.
Now, for over sixty years we have been living in the not-totally-socialist-nor-completely-free society that Hayek rightly labels the "welfare state." We now see the staggering fiscal costs of having both political parties acknowledge this welfare state as the almighty epicenter of politics from which all policies emanate.
On the same hand we are young enough as a country to still recall, and hence know the virtue of, the constitutionally limited government of the Founding.
Enter the weirdness progressives and much of the public see in the idea of actually respecting the Constitution and returning it to its rightful place in legislative politics. It follows quite reasonably that, for many, using the Constitution and not the entitlement-obsessed doctrine of the welfare state as the epicenter of legislative and executive action is downright weird.
But, as in many cycles of history, what was old is suddenly new again, and what is new is viewed as weird. The Constitution is older than the progressive assault on it, so any call to bring back a constitutionally limited government, although not new, will be new (and weird) to anyone who assumes the role of government is to morph into the all-encompassing nanny state.
The Tea Party, with all its clamoring for fiscal responsibility and individual freedom, bases its arguments and hope in a return to limiting the power of the federal government. What is the most effective and principled way to do this? A return to the Constitution. Its already been there for a long time. It simply needs re-embraced.
There is nothing magical about what's in the Constitution, even though it is an extraordinary document, written and adopted out of "reflection and choice" as The Federalist Papers
remind us, unlike the beginning of any other country on earth. Its primary virtue is it limits the power of the government and allows for a society in which individuals may live freely and prosper. Progressives have long rejected this notion and believe the Constitution and a respectful adherence to it is a roadblock to the social justice that can only be provide by the benevolent and unrestricted hand of government. It is good this notion of a constitutionally-centered government is new to a lot of people and weird to others. Many, after some understandable reticence, might just show an interest in learning about the weird new thing. (Kind of like poking a dead exotic animal with a stick.) And just as important, the weirdness of it all reminds everyone how far we've drifted from the Constitution---and it forces us to make the case whether or not returning to its limited form of government is a good thing or a bad thing.
Ignoring the issue and kicking the political and fiscal can down the road would just be, well, weird.
