Democrats vs The Constitution

Democrats hate the US Constitution.  They don't follow it, they don't respect it and they don't want it.  If you need evidence of this have a discussion with a liberal Democrat and bring up the Constitution.  Watch as they get red in the face and begin making arguments against why it should be followed.

Just this week I had such a discussion online in the feedback to an article on the Nashua Telegraph's website.  The question was posed, how have we gotten to this point where the presidency is so disrespected and how do we recover.  I responded stating that we got to this point by having two parties with two very different views each trying to force others to follow their own views and by using the force of the government gun to impose their views on those who object or to force everyone to fund their ideas regardless of whether they wish to or not.  I pointed out that if we got back to actually following the verbiage of Article I Section 8 of the Constitution where the powers given to the federal government were actually spelled out we'd see far more respect because we would have a government that doesn't over step its bounds and puts its nose into areas it doesn't belong.

That comment kicked off a whole slew of feed back from the left wing liberals reading the site.  I'd like to share some of it with you to point out what kind of mentality the left has.

Hudsonite writes:

You do realize there's more to the constitution than that one clause right? You should perhaps read the whole thing, particularly the clause that allows the federal government to regulate interstate commerce.

Now this is funny because it clearly demonstrates how little this person knows about the actual constitution while they attempt to show they do know something about it.  The clause they refer to is part of Article I Section 8 "To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;"

What's even funnier (read as sad) is that two additional readers clicked "like" on his comment thinking he was "slamming" me with his superior knowledge when in fact Hudsonite was showing his complete utter ignorance of the Constitution.

SLRNashuan writes:

The Constitutional arguments are illogical. There was no way for the Founders to imagine Wall Street or the vast insurance empires or cyberspace or modern weaponry. The Founding Documents were written over 200 years ago. It should be used as a guide but unless the suggestion is that we all go back to horse and buggy days, we cannot strictly apply everything in the document.

By the way, where were all these new found friends of the Constitution during the last eight years when the Bush/Cheney administration ignored it and trampled on the rights of citizens in ways never before seen? Crickets.

Now this argument is interesting in that there are two key points.  First is the founders couldn't have envisioned everything and then the second is the claim that Bush/Chaney ignored it.

Regarding the first point, they are correct that the founders could not have envisioned everything which is why they gave two tools to allow for that within the Constitution.  The first is the ability to amend the Constitution which we have done 27 times with the latest being in 1992.  The second ability and perhaps the most powerful part of the Constitution is the 10th Amendment.

"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."

In other words anything the government is specifically not bared from doing (like banning free speech or taking away our guns) is allowed by state level governments.  The founders wanted each state to be free to make its own rules and implement many of the things like Health Care coverage if that is what the people wished.  This allowed smaller governments to wield this power so people have more direct control over it.  And those who strongly disagree with something can simply move to another state without having to leave the country.

Now the second argument this poster made is a smoke screen, don't look close at Obama because Bush broke the rules too.  Sorry but saying George did it too doesn't excuse you from doing wrong.  This argument also totally fails to understand my original point.  I acknowledge that both sides broke the rules and that is why we've gotten to a point where both sides hate each other so much.

Sajwert writes:

SLRNashuan, if we LITERALLY followed the Constitution, we would probably not have freed the slaves.

This is an interesting claim.  So if we literally follow the Constitution we would not have freed the slaves?  I'm not sure how they drive to this conclusion.  Slaves are mentioned in two parts of the Constitution, Article I Section 2 and Amendment 13.

"Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several states which may be included within this union, according to their respective numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole number of free persons, including those bound to service for a term of years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons."

And

"Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction."

So the Amendment abolished it.  If we literally follow the Constitution then we will never have slavery.

Further bickering ensued about the Constitution until finally a poster going by AlexF posted the most telling question of all to those who believe the Constitution is outdated or should be viewed as a "Living" document to be re-interpreted over time, he asked that those with these views "flip through the Constitution and report back on which parts you'd like to throw out".  Of course there came no answer, only this follow up question by poster Tesha:

Alex, show me a section - not half a line or a snippet - show me a section where it says "There shall be no insurance offered to our citizens to deal with the complex state of health care in 2009"

Alex correctly responded:

"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."

If a power is NOT given to the government in Article I Section 8 or in an Amendment then it is a power the government does not have.  We cannot give the government every single power we dream up simply because the founding fathers did not specifically think to limit the government from having that power.  Why would they have listed a specific list of powers if the government was to have anything not specifically limited by the Constitution?

I'd encourage my readers to from time to time have discussions or at least start a discussion with liberals either on forums on the internet or in private and listen to them as they should their contempt and failure to understand the Constitution and remind yourself, these people vote.  This is what we're up against folks, people who do not understand nor wish to follow the Constitution of this country and in doing so they seek representatives who will impose their will over you with government force to get what they want.

Comments

[Jim Splaine]

Ummmm, Richard -- you overlooked an important part of our Constitution while you were speed-reading:

"Article One, Section Eight: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States."

Well, now what could that "general welfare of the United States" be? Medicare so that our senior citizens can have a level of health care? Funding for housing so that fewer Americans will be in the streets? Social Security so that our older citizens can live with some degree of dignity? Education so that all Americans can have some degree of education to compete with the world? And perhaps health care so that our citizenry can have a level of health care so that our nation will be stronger to take on the challenges of a threatening world?

Would you want us to be a weak and un-educated country? A country where only the well-to-do can afford health care and education and housing? Democrats support the Constitution, because our fore-fathers and mothers were visionary enough to write a document that provides flexibility for an uncertain future. It's worked well for over 200 years because we've had government leaders that don't have their minds in the Middle Ages.

(PS: I write "...our fore-fathers AND mothers..." because while we all know that women couldn't vote in those days, for some reason, and since there were none who were members of the group who wrote the Constitution, they were behind the scenes telling the men how to do it.)

[Chaz Proulx]

Welcome to the Barnesian Fantasy Park everyone.

[Rick Barnes]

With respect to the words general welfare, I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators. - James Madison

Sorry Jim but your boat don't float.

[Jim Splaine]

Sorry, Richard -- we have a Supreme Court that decides those kinds of things, and I don't think James Madison is around to be nominated to the Court.

Sorry Richard but your ship left the dock some centuries ago.

[Chaz Proulx]

Jim

Richard and his fellow constitutionalists think they "channel" the thoughts of our founding fathers.

In truth our founding fathers were very opinionated people and were not into groupthink.

Thus our constitution, like all legal documents is subject to interpretation.

And as you pointed out, it is the Judicial branch of government that does the interpreting.

Of course the "channellers" like to forget that our founding fathers came up with three branches of gov so we would have checks and balances against ideologues

[Rick Barnes]

Madison WROTE the document, if anyone should be looked at for what it means he should. The more you two spin and argue the more you prove the point of my article.

But Jim, I do have a question for you, since you feel that we should instead trust the supreme court, then do you agree with the supreme court's ruling General Electric Co. v. Gilbert from 1976 in which they said discrimination based on pregnancy is not based on sex because some women would not be discriminated against? I could list several other supreme court cases that I'd consider bone headed as well but I think this proves my point.. the court has been flawed and it's rulings have been over turned.

I'm willing to accept the argument if you choose to make it that the Constitution too is flawed, but it allows for amendments just as the Supreme Court's rulings can be over turned so I'm willing to discuss just which amendments you'd like to see... I am NOT willing to see its words twisted into something the writers did not mean or intend and I will fight until my dying breath to see that the original meaning is followed so you and Chaz are welcome to "interpretation" all you want and I will fight against you the whole way.

[Jim Splaine]

Richard -- your right to work for any Constitutional Amendment you can imagine is a right guaranteed to you by the Constitution, and I will fight for your right to my dying day. I will also very likely fight against any number of Constitutional Amendments that I assume you will imagine!

I'm also not thrilled by all decisions of the Supreme Court, but I'm pleased that we do have THREE branches of government to provide a "balance of powers." Remember that concept of "balance of powers" from your high school civics class? Or maybe you missed that memo.

[Ed Naile]

Richard:

You are arguing with Obamabots who have crawled out of the woodwork now that The One has spiraled into oblivion - in eight devastating months. What took so long?

Careful they don't make you waste precious time.

My suggestion: USE THEM to teach what liberal group think is limited to.

[Jim Splaine]

I thought it was American, not "liberal" or "conservative," to support the United States Constitution. And since the Supreme Court is one of the three branches of government created by those who wrote our Constitution, I support the Supreme Court.

I'm a proud American, as are millions of others who support President Barack Obama.

[Ed Naile]

Liberal Patriotism
The worst refuge of a scoundrel.

[Jim Splaine]

Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhh, Ed. Now YOU are the one who decides who is a patriot, or not? An American, or not? That's the saddest testimony you have written yet, and the most revealing about the so-called Tea Baggers.

[Ed Naile]

Jim:

Tea Baggers?

You are a whole hearted supporter of Tea Bag Marriage. Now Tea Bagging is what, bad?

Yes, I do have a definite opinion of what makes is a patriot.

I believe yours is rather elastic, like your progressive take on the Constitution.

[Steve M]

I have always found it fascinating that anyone would take a document whose sole purpose is to limit the abuse of power inherent in the necessary evil of a federal government and construe it to afford whatever power they feel or deem relevant at any moment in time.

It's actually quite a contradictory notion to ascribe.

[Cynical]

It seems to come down to whether or not you believe:
A) the Constitution is a device to control what everyone in the Nation can do, and therefore present a normalized front to make us look sane when conducting business with other Nations.
or
B) the Constitution is a device to enumerate how few things we Americans actually do agree on and hold each other accountable to our agreements (lest we forget them in our haste).

The Bill of Rights is a device to control the Constitution to keep choice A from warping out of control into a totalitarian insanity. But if you like choice A: why bother reading choice B, and then you can just skip the part where we agree to hold ourselves accountable to the Bill of Rights?

[Jim Splaine]

The Supreme Court is provided for in the United States Constitution, and they have interpreted the document to allow the kinds of things the United States Congress has created in areas of the general welfare of our country. Health care -- i.e. Medicare -- is certainly one of those, as would be health insurance reform.

I think the writers of the Constitution certainly had the vision to write a document that has balance of powers between the Executive, Judiciary, and Legislative for a reason. And they realized that the nation would grow, as would our population, and that there were clear purposes for government.

Government isn't an enemy -- it's all of us, collectively, coming together to be sure we can live together. The representative government we have works generally well, and our kind of democracy is still the envy of other nations throughout the world.

It would be good if government haters recognized that they don't have all the answers.

[Ed Naile]

Jim:

I am a government hater, specifically, I HATE government in the hands of tyrants and liars.

Looks like it comes natural for me to hate this particular government you are so proud of, the one which is trying to replace the one I respected.

And when we take this one back and drive out the tyrants and liars I will love it.

[Chaz Proulx]

Mr. Ed

calm down. Start drinking decafe or something.

Wilber

[Jim Splaine]

Good one Chaz.

A horse is a horse, of course, of course.

I loved Mr. Ed. He taught me at an early age that you can lead a horse to water, but ...

[Ed Naile]

Readers:

Did you ever notice, some people never quite catch on, but in the Mr. Ed television series Mr. Ed, the horse, was the smartest actor in the show?

I'll take the compliment in any case.

And if Mr. Ed ever comes back to TV I suggest two new actors to play stable boys.

[Cynical]

If government is US, then it is US-the-people taking from THEM-the-people. Taking by force if necessary.
Funny how to improve your general welfare it will be necessary to impair someone else's general welfare. But hey, you're so much nicer and special.