TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- How Tyranny Came to America (Warning: Long)
How Tyranny Came to America (Warning: Long)
How Tyranny Came to America
Written by Joe Sobran
One of the great goals of education is to initiate the young into the conversation of their ancestors; to enable them to understand the language of that conversation, in all its subtlety, and maybe even, in their maturity, to add to it some wisdom of their own.
The modern American educational system no longer teaches us the political language of our ancestors. In fact our schooling helps widen the gulf of time between our ancestors and ourselves, because much of what we are taught in the name of civics, political science, or American history is really modern liberal propaganda. Sometimes this is deliberate. Worse yet, sometimes it isn�t. Our ancestral voices have come to sound alien to us, and therefore our own moral and political language is impoverished. It�s as if the people of England could no longer understand Shakespeare, or Germans couldn�t comprehend Mozart and Beethoven.
So to most Americans, even those who feel oppressed by what they call big government, it must sound strange to hear it said, in the past tense, that tyranny �came� to America. After all, we have a constitution, don�t we? We�ve abolished slavery and segregation. We won two world wars and the Cold War. We still congratulate ourselves before every ballgame on being the Land of the Free. And we aren�t ruled by some fanatic with a funny mustache who likes big parades with thousands of soldiers goose-stepping past huge pictures of himself.
For all that, we no longer fully have what our ancestors, who framed and ratified our Constitution, thought of as freedom � a careful division of power that prevents power from becoming concentrated and unlimited. The word they usually used for concentrated power was consolidated � a rough synonym for fascist. And the words they used for any excessive powers claimed or exercised by the state were usurped and tyrannical. They would consider the modern �liberal� state tyrannical in principle; they would see in it not the opposite of the fascist, communist, and socialist states, but their sister.
If Washington and Jefferson, Madison, and Hamilton could come back, the first thing they�d notice would be that the federal government now routinely assumes thousands of powers never assigned to it � powers never granted, never delegated, never enumerated. These were the words they used, and it�s a good idea for us to learn their language. They would say that we no longer live under the Constitution they wrote. And the Americans of a much later era � the period from Cleveland to Coolidge, for example � would say we no longer live even under the Constitution they inherited and amended.
I call the present system �Post�Constitutional America.� As I sometimes put it, the U.S. Constitution poses no serious threat to our form of government.
What�s worse is that our constitutional illiteracy cuts us off from our own national heritage. And so our politics degenerates into increasingly bitter and unprincipled quarrels about who is going to bear the burdens of war and welfare.
I don�t want to sound like an oracle on this subject. As a typical victim of modern public education and a disinformed citizen of this media-ridden country, I took a long time � an embarrassingly long time � to learn what I�m passing on. It was like studying geometry in old age, and discovering how simple the basic principles of space really are. It was the old story: In order to learn, first I had to unlearn. Most of what I�d been taught and told about the Constitution was misguided or even false. And I�d never been told some of the most elementary things, which would have saved me a tremendous amount of confusion.
The Constitution does two things. First, it delegates certain enumerated powers to the federal government. Second, it separates those powers among the three branches. Most people understand the secondary principle of the separation of powers. But they don�t grasp the primary idea of delegated and enumerated powers.
Consider this. We have recently had a big national debate over national health care. Advocates and opponents argued long and loud over whether it could work, what was fair, how to pay for it, and so forth. But almost nobody raised the basic issue: Where does the federal government get the power to legislate in this area? The answer is: Nowhere. The Constitution lists 18 specific legislative powers of Congress, and not a one of them covers national health care.
As a matter of fact, none of the delegated powers of Congress � and delegated is always the key word � covers Social Security, or Medicaid, or Medicare, or federal aid to education, or most of what are now miscalled �civil rights,� or countless public works projects, or equally countless regulations of business, large and small, or the space program, or farm subsidies, or research grants, or subsidies to the arts and humanities, or ... well, you name it, chances are it�s unconstitutional. Even the most cynical opponents of the Constitution would be dumbfounded to learn that the federal government now tells us where we can smoke. We are less free, more heavily taxed, and worse governed than our ancestors under British rule. Sometimes this government makes me wonder: Was George III really all that bad?
Let�s be clear about one thing. Constitutional and unconstitutional aren�t just simple terms of approval and disapproval. A bad law may be perfectly constitutional. A wise and humane law may be unconstitutional. But what is almost certainly bad is a constant disposition to thwart or disregard the Constitution.
It�s not just a matter of what is sometimes called the �original intent� of the authors of the Constitution. What really matters is the common, explicit, unchallenged understanding of the Constitution, on all sides, over several generations. There was no mystery about it.
The logic of the Constitution was so elegantly simple that a foreign observer could explain it to his countrymen in two sentences. Alexis de Tocqueville wrote that �the attributes of the federal government were carefully defined [in the Constitution], and all that was not included among them was declared to remain to the governments of the individual states. Thus the government of the states remained the rule, and that of the federal government the exception.�
The Declaration of Independence, which underlies the Constitution, holds that the rights of the people come from God, and that the powers of the government come from the people. Let me repeat that: According to the Declaration of Independence, the rights of the people come from God, and the powers of the government come from the people. Unless you grasp this basic order of things, you�ll have a hard time understanding the Constitution.
(CONTINUED)
Are u just promoting? What is the debatable issue?
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Spacey Orange Are u just promoting? What is the debatable issue? |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Trancer-X I'm trying to enliven this relatively closed-minded forum by presenting new topics for both discussion and personal rumination. The forum title is Political Discussion / Debate - so not everything here HAS to be debatable. Seeing that you're so new here I'll be nice and leave it at that. |
I didn't get the chance to continue (yet) but the essay is quite logical.
And he's quite right; the United States is just that, "united" States with a consituation to glue it all together and federal government meant to guide, not lead...
what a great essay-thing. i love mind-opening readings like this. 
Too tired to comment right now 
| quote: |
| Originally posted by josh4 Please keep all such efforts to 5 sentences or less. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Trancer-X Do you think I should refrain from using polysyllabic words as well? |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Fir3start3r Well...you really to have to dumb it down from some people... |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Trancer-X Do you think I should refrain from using polysyllabic words as well? |
Interesting read although if someone brought up the elastic clause then you'd be stuck in a pickle. That clause has been argued for a long time and then you get into the whole idea of strict constructionism vs. loose constructionism. Another mistake is the whole liberal vs. conservative thing, I don't think that had anything to do with the original constitution or with our initial freedoms, the constution isn't partisan and George Washington argued against political parties and bi-partisanship. I agree with you on some issues though. I believe that the in the day and age that we live the US constitution as it was written by our forefathers and ratified by the original 13 colonies has been rendered null and void by the actions of the federal government. Therefore I think perhaps a revolution may be necessary to free us from the tyrrany of King George W. The constution calls for revolution in this instance and I believe any true patriot will agree. That definiton of patriotism being that spirit so inherent to our forefathers not the slaughter of innocents to support national pride. Thomas Jefferson intended for there to be periodic revolutions because he knew that no constution is perfect and they will all become corrupted given enough time. Given a long enough time period the all governments will fail and fall.
Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.