How Much Abuse Can Our Constitution Take?

by Terry Garlock
 

Last Friday we celebrated with parades and fireworks the anniversary 
of Thomas Jefferson’s masterful 1776 Declaration of Independence, a 
timeless document that informed the world of our inherent right to 
abolish a royal ruling class and to govern ourselves.
 

That 240 year old document has inspired other revolutions of 
self-determination, but the world has changed a great deal.
How relevant to our lives today were the events of the late 18th 
century that gave our country birth?
 

I would argue that taking a careful look at that history  might be the 
only way to salvage a dying American system. If  you can stand a 
different point of view, I will suggest that  the balance of power 
central to our Constitution has always depended on the key  ingredient of 
self-restraint. I would also argue that the  epidemic of 
self-indulgence and instant gratification  sweeping our country is 
strangling to death the magic of  America our founders created.
 

Consider the history. By 1776, King George III had been piling new 
laws and taxes on the Colonists since the close of the French and 
Indian War in 1763 as he tried to recover the expense of that war and 
tried to avoid further conflict with Native Americans by forbidding 
colonists from settling further west than the eastern edge of the 
Appalachian mountain range. Colonial resentment escalated with each 
new law and tax.
 

The colonies thought of themselves as separate countries loyal to the 
Crown, never having acted together on anything when they gathered the 
first Continental Congress in 1774 to collaborate on how best to 
petition the King.

Our colonial leaders in Congress were not a
harmonious group at all. They fought like cats and dogs,  just like 
today, and only through self-restraint were they  able to set aside 
some important issues that divided them in  order to gain strength by 
common action. The north wanted to  abolish slavery while the 
agricultural southern states  bristled at any mention of the issue and 
would not tolerate  any discussion of abolition. Only by suppressing 
their  personal strong beliefs and pretending the issue of slavery  did 
not even exist were the colonists able to cobble  together a united 
declaration that they were free and united  states.
 

When the war was over in 1783 the states were still using the wholly 
inadequate Articles of Confederation to govern themselves. Meanwhile, 
a Constitution was being developed.
 

James Madison was arguably the architect of our  Constitution, but 
support for it was not universal.
Divisions and arguments ran deep. I can almost see Madison  thinking 
through scenarios in collaboration with Jefferson, imagining what would  happen if his 
party were in control, versus what would  happen if those other guys he 
didn’t trust were elected.
And thus, I believe, was born the delicate balance of power  in our 
system of Legislative, Executive and Judicial  branches in Madison’s 
draft of the Constitution.
 

Two competing camps arose. Like Democrats and Republicans of today, 
the Federalists and anti-Federalists vehemently disagreed, suspected 
and mistrusted each other, and some plainly hated each other.
Federalists advocated a strong federal government with a central bank 
And standing army while the opposition favored strong states.
 

A Constitutional Convention was called in Philadelphia to  start on 
May 25, 1787. During that summer, plotting,  maneuvering and 
deal-making bubbled beneath the surface of  creating the mechanics of 
how America would govern itself as  each party and state sought to 
advance their self-interest. Against the notion that only male  land-owners could 
vote, women and merchants made their  objections well known. Knowing 
that slavery was still too  explosive to deal with, the northern states 
traded away  their objection to slavery for 20 years in exchange for 
arguably minor concessions. Large states and small states  differed on 
apportionment, leading to a deal on two senators  for each state, 
whether large or small.
 

Uninformed or disingenuous race hucksters like Al Sharpton  still 
promote conflict with the idea that southern states  only valued blacks 
at 2/3 of a human being. But the truth  is, during the Constitutional 
Convention in 1787 the  southern states wanted all slaves fully counted 
or  apportionment of representatives since it would give them  the 
advantage of more votes. Northern states wanted slaves  counted only as 
property to be taxed, but they finally  agreed to a fraction of each 
slave as 3/5 of a headcount for  apportionment purposes.

When the deal-making was done and the Constitutional Convention closed 
on September 17, the work was not nearly complete since each state had 
to ratify the Constitution, and that would take considerable time and 
persuasion. Over the following year, James Madison, Alexander Hamilton 
and John Jay collaborated on a series of 85 articles called The 
Federalist Papers – technically at the time called “The Federalist” - 
published in New York newspapers under the pseudonym “Publias” in 
honor of Publius Valerius Publicola, known as “friend of the people”
when he helped overthrow the Roman monarchy to establish a republic in
509 BC. They published in New York because that state was most opposed 
to Federalist ideas. The Federalist essays argued the case for 
ratifying the Constitution while anti-Federalists argued against it.
 

Throughout this nation-building, nobody got all they wanted  in a new 
country. Everyone had to temper their
personal desires with self-restraint – like adults – to  make the 
whole thing work. As an example, the Federalists  reluctantly agreed to 
the anti-Federalist proposal of the  first 10 amendments, the Bill of 
Rights, even though  Federalists thought those amendments were 
unnecessary. In 1788 the Congress adopted the Constitution with ratification  by 11 
states, and by 1790 the last two states, North  Carolina and Rhode 
Island, had ratified to make it  unanimous.
 

In all the years since the Constitution was ratified, each branch of 
government has had to find the self-restraint to remain within the 
parameters of the balance of power. There have been bumps and scrapes 
now and then, but I believe we are seeing for the first time today 
wholesale violation of that balance by the Executive.
 

Over the last half century, we have allowed liberal thinking  to erode 
many of our freedoms. It is human nature for those  given authority to 
manufacture rules to govern the lives of others. Oblivious to any need for self-restraint, 
Congress cranks out about 4,000 laws and  regulations per year, 
controlling ever more of our lives as  they cleverly hide behind the 
Commerce Clause in Article I  of the Constitution.
 

Meanwhile the Executive branch has created bloated bureaucracies that 
arrogantly apply politics to their heavy-handed regulation with nary a 
thought to self-restraint and the role of Congress to make laws. They 
wield a heavy hand to control personal property based on rain puddles 
that make them “wetlands,” or shut down industries based on the 
sighting of a rare critter like an owl or tiny snail darter, or 
manufacture reasons to run coal plant operators out of business. If 
the fed decides to classify the Sage Grouse as endangered, it could 
limit development, oil drilling, ranching and hunting on 165 million 
acres across 11 western states. Could politics possibly be involved?
 

Government’s self-restraint to leave the people to their freedoms is now  a 
distant memory. 
Do you need an example of a little power making folks crazy?
Larry Murphee, a 73 year old veteran living in the Tides Condominium 
at Sweetwater in Jacksonville, FL, displays a small American flag in a 
flower pot on his front stoop. The Condo Association objected and 
fined him $100 per day. Good old Larry sued them and won, but the 
Association then changed their rules to say a flower pot may only 
contain flowers, thereafter continuing to fine him $100 per day. He of 
course refuses to pay, the Association put a lien on his condo and is 
proceeding with foreclosure. A little restraint would go a long way, 
but maybe these people are just following the heavy-hand example set 
by our own government.
 

Our president has a Constitutional duty to enforce the  nation’s laws 
as passed by Congress. Obama started poking  his finger in the 
Constitution’s eye when he instructed
the Department of Justice not to enforce the Defense of  Marriage 
Act, a law passed by Congress and signed by  President Bill Clinton.
Obama will tell audiences that  America’s immigration system is broken, 
but he is the one  who broke it by refusing to enforce immigration law.
The  Dream Act failed to pass in Congress so Obama overstepped  the 
Constitutional line to create a law by a stroke of his  royal pen, 
declaring that young people brought to the US  illegally by their 
parents will not be deported. And now we  have a crisis of children 
flooding across our southern  border.
 

Obama has ignored his Constitutional limits on the Executive by 
changing the terms of the Obamacare law 38 times without a single 
blush over intruding into the province of Congress.
That closely follows dumbed down generations of Americans who have 
learned self-indulgence instead of self-restraint.
 

Two weeks ago the US Supreme Court ruled in the Hobby Lobby  case that
owners of closely held businesses could not be forced to  violate 
their religious beliefs in providing health care  with abortion-related 
benefits to employees.

In a breathtaking lack of self-restraint, egghead citizens who believe 
fervently in government have objected to this ruling, claiming that 
Hobby Lobby is trying to impose their religious beliefs on female 
employees. Actually the fault is in anyone who would force Hobby Lobby 
to pay for employee benefits that violate the owners’ religious 
beliefs. Hobby Lobby pays for 16 out of 20 listed contraceptives our 
government now says MUST be included in a health care policy; Hobby 
Lobby refuses to pay for the other four that arguably come too close 
to abortion.
 

Of course nobody is limiting female employees from anything.
A little self-restraint would lead intelligent people to  recognize a 
business should not be forced by government to  pay for any employee 
benefit, and that employees who
want it can buy it for themselves.
 

Do you see how far down the liberal slope we have slipped?
Instead of arguing whether it is proper for the government to mandate 
“free” services in your employer-provided health care policy, now we 
merely argue about which benefits can be included in those mandates.
 

Do I do think America will survive Obama’s Constitutional violations? 
Yes, but I have grave doubts whether our American system will long 
survive the dumbed down masses who vote for such a dumbed down 
president.

h/t: Bud Burrell