David

Karki

Read David's bio and previous columns here

August 5, 2009

If We Ignore Its Limits on Government, the Constitution Can’t Protect Us from Tyranny

As we head into the August recess, with the specter looming of the autumn passage of a health care bill that would obliterate all limits on the power of the federal government, it causes me to think about the bigger picture. More to the point, how could anybody with even the most rudimentary knowledge of the U.S. Constitution think this bill comports with it?

What clause could possibly authorize this? The answer, of course, is that there isn't one and never has been. This can be proven with a bit of simple logical deduction: Why would the founders spend all that time and effort writing a document explicitly limiting the federal government, only to undo all that work in a single sentence? Obviously, they didn't.

Whether you're talking about "necessary and proper," or interstate commerce, or due process, the idea that a single somewhat vague line or clause obliterates the entire rest of the Constitution and its strict and explicit limits is just plain silly.

To the extent liberal activist judges or power-hungry congressmen and senators deliberately read into these clauses things that just aren't there, so they can forcibly create a specific (read: liberal) policy outcome, they are violating their oath of office, abusing their power, committing an act worthy of removal from office, and arguably treason itself. I'd respect an honest tyrant more than one that skulks behind the supposed "emanations and penumbras" to disingenuously justify and outright hide his or her tyranny.

It's why elected officials swear an oath to the document and not a person. The document is the measuring stick for such things, exposing them for what they are, and remains forever impartial and unswayable.

The Constitution means what it clearly says, and nothing else. It creates, by design, a federal government that is small and has few powers, leaving most things to the states. (This is wise. Fifty flavors allow everyone to live in the flavor of their choosing. One size does not and indeed cannot fit all.) It's the supreme law of the land and must be followed by us all, and especially those with power whom have sworn oaths to do precisely that.

And when they don't – which, these days, is often – they need to experience some kind of consequences for it. One big reason we've reached this point is that they haven't, which exponentially increases their hubris.

That this has become a controversial position or one that makes its holder an "extreme right-wing wacko" tells you all you need to know about how far America has moved to the left. This nation is hanging by a thread, about to be severed from its founding principles once and for all. And when that happens, there's no telling how far we will fall and how much we all shall suffer for it.

This process began in full with FDR's unconstitutional New Deal, putting America in the hospital, and LBJ's Great Society putting it in the intensive care unit. President Obama's "health care" (and "cap and trade") bill is the final stake through its heart and pulling of the plug. (Ironic, given that the bill will do the same to most elderly and infirm in the name of “cost savings.” Sorry, Grandma, you and your country are just too expensive to let live.)

Take a step back from it all, and what we're really talking about here are a couple simple questions: Is there an unchanging, transcendent, capital-T Truth or not? And do words not have clear, fixed meanings? If the answer is at all in the affirmative, then their survival – and ours a nation with them – depends upon our commitment to defend eternal truths against the forces of relativism.

The political application is this: If the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, it must be followed, or it isn't worth a bucket of warm spit. Also, it means what it clearly says. If it can be arbitrarily redefined, it's worthless as well. And lastly, if anyone ignores, or defines, or bastardizes the Constitution, they need to be held accountable for it. Or, again, the document is nothing and protects us from despotism not at all.

Samuel Adams said it better than I ever could:

"How strangely will the tools of a tyrant pervert the plain meaning of words!" – Samuel Adams

"If ever the time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in government, our Country will stand in need of its experienced Patriots to prevent its ruin." 

– Letter to James Warren, October 24, 1780

© 2009 North Star Writers Group. May not be republished without permission.

Click here to talk to our writers and editors about this column and others in our discussion forum.

To e-mail feedback about this column, click here. If you enjoy this writer's work, please contact your local newspapers editors and ask them to carry it.

This is Column # DKK192. Request permission to publish here.