Unhappy Constitution Day
People across the U.S. today are celebrating Constitution Day (including many of my fellow libertarians). Personally, I'm not sure what there is to celebrate. I understand the argument that it was a document that, on its face, set up a somewhat limited government (especially by today's standards), but that limited government was orders of magnitude more powerful (even on paper) than the previous one set up under the Articles of Confederation. And I understand that Madison and those guys came up with some seemingly very clever checks and balances that probably seemed really cool to people that were used to powerful monarchs, but all those checks and balances were functions of one single government. If the government wants to, there's nothing to theoretically prevent it from doing whatever it wants. Even allowing voters the occasional choice of rulers is a largely meaningless check since nothing can be done between elections, and the majority of voters almost always vote for the candidate who promises them the biggest chunk of their neighbors' money or the biggest expansion of government's ability to make their neighbors behave the way they want.
The U.S. Constitution specifically gives the federal government 18 enumerated powers. To make matters worse, it contains vague language, like the Commerce Clause, the General Welfare Clause, and the Necessary and Proper Clause, which have made it frighteningly easy for the government to continually interpret new powers into existence for itself. In fact, the only way the Federalists were even able to get the Constitution ratified was by including the Bill of Rights, which placed specific limits on government power. But even these, as we have seen over and over in our history, can be ignored with great impunity by Presidents and Congresses with a mind to do so.
Ah, you say, but we have the Supreme Court to check the other branches and make sure they don't violate the Constitution. That's a nice theory, but that's not what usually happens. Who appoints the Supreme Court justices? The Executive, with Senate confirmation. There's no inherent reason for one branch to fear (as Madison hoped) a growth in power by another branch and thus act to stop it. In fact, each branch has the most to gain if it can help the other branches gain more power. And this is exactly what we have seen in reality as each branch has grown ever more powerful and placed ever more severe limits on the ability of individuals to act and interact freely. And the propaganda that has been built up around the Constitution has most Americans mindlessly repeating quaint platitudes about "a blueprint for limited government" and "the Articles of Confederation just didn't create a strong enough central government to hold the union together" (as if that should ever have been considered a legitimate end in the first place).
So the reality appears to be that the Constitution has had the perverse effect of advancing and legitimizing a perpetually expanding government while convincing the majority of people that it's supposed to do the opposite.
No, I don't believe I'll be celebrating Constitution Day. But I certainly will tip my hat to the Anti-Federalists and supporters of the Bill of Rights, since they saw the Constitution for what it was.
If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!
September 17th, 2009 - 18:22
If the Constitution is that defunct, then please direct me to an alternate country which offers greater civil liberties.
September 17th, 2009 - 18:39
The existence of greater civil liberties in the U.S. does not change the fact that our civil liberties are still greatly curtailed and our other freedoms (property and economic type freedoms) have been continuously eroded, despite the existence of a particular piece of paper that was supposed to set up a system that prevents that outcome.
September 17th, 2009 - 19:34
It seems to me that said erosion was largely de minimis until the Great Depression. Before then we had hard money, small (or no) federal deficits, low tax rates, and little federal regulation.
September 17th, 2009 - 19:55
Oh, no doubt things got much worse around that time (though, as I’ve said before, I would date the statist explosion at 1913). But the point is that the Constitution (and resultant division of power, checks and balances, etc) was powerless to stop it, and, in fact, was used to justify it.
September 17th, 2009 - 23:34
I assume you are referring to the passage of the federal reserve act and federal income taxes. Note that financial crisis (Panic of 1907) also preceded that wave of state expansionism. In 1984, Orwell does a great job of illustrating how wars empower the state. But financial panics are just as odious, in my opinion. May I recommend “The Panic of 1907: Lessons Learned from the Market’s Perfect Storm” by Robert F. Bruner. Great read about what went down 100 years ago- same story today.
September 22nd, 2009 - 11:06
“…the majority of voters almost always vote for the candidate who promises them the biggest chunk of their neighbors’ money or the biggest expansion of government’s ability to make their neighbors behave the way they want.”
Boy, that says it all right there! One or both of those two points is what makes hypocrites of both parties.