Tell me: just what are today's conservatives trying to conserve?
Does anyone know? Is there a standard? True, there is Biblical morality as seen through Christian eyes--but Constantine endorsed Christianity too, didn't he, so there's nothing uniquely American in that. No, we'll have to look elsewhere for our standard.
In his anthology, Did You Ever See a Dream Walking?: American Conservative Thought in the Twentieth Century, William F. Buckley, Jr. wrote, "American conservatism is distinctive, conditioned of course by the special features of American history. But it is also continuous with the orthodox moral and political traditions of Western civilization, and serious students should therefore know something of that tradition." Ah...okay, so we won't ignore Constantine. But Buckley goes on: "Turning to America, a close acquaintance, please, with the Declaration of Independence, the Federalist Papers, and the Constitution."
Bingo! That's the ticket: the Constitution. It's too long, really, to be dealt with in a blog post, but surely we can take a look at one part of it, eh? I'm thinking of the first ten amendments, the Bill of Rights. Let's see what's being conserved there, shall we?
Amendment I. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Oops.
I'm sure it's just me, but "In God we trust" on coins, and "one nation, under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance, and Christmas as a federal holiday, and the swearing in of public officials on the (Jewish-Christian) Bible, and the recent moves regarding "faith-based" organizations...I don't know: it is true, I'll admit, that it's not Establishment of one religion, a la Church of England, but it's uncomfortably close for me. Any one of those could be tolerable--and hey, I grew up in this country with most of them--but put it all together with a president who claims that his "favorite philosopher" is Jesus Christ (and he's the "faith-based initiatives" guy) and a Rick Santorum in the Senate and an Antonin Scalia on the Supreme Court, and I have to say, I do get nervous.
As for "prohibiting the free exercise" of religion, well, we have a problem there, too. I don't know how many of the multitude of Anger of Compassion readers are able to opt out of various levels of taxation, but I enjoy no such luxury. So consider this: you are forced to pay taxes at the federal, state, county, and city/local level. Forced. You support courthouses and city halls and public parks and public schools with your tax dollars--and, more and ever more, you are forbidden to post any displays of your faith on those properties. True, those properties were financed by Jews and Muslims and Jains and Wiccans and atheists also--still, your tax dollars went there too. Makes you wonder what "public property" might mean, doesn't it? So we seem to have a contradiction between "respecting an establishment of religion" and "prohibiting the free exercise thereof." But it does give the lie to "free exercise thereof."
As for abridging the freedom of speech, please...campaign finance "reform?" And this one was shepherded by a Republican, John McCain. And we can forget any explicit depictions of sexual congress, because it shall be deemed pornography, and therefore won't be protected...oh, and we can ban cigarette commercials on television, because that's "commercial" speech and therefore not protected...oh, and of course, if you agitate against paying income taxes in the first place, you can be outlawed by one judge.
The right of the people peaceably to assemble? Sure, unless you fall afoul of the Americans with Disabilities Act--signed into law by a Republican president--or various racist (read: "affirmative action") schemes.
Finally, we have petitioning the Government for a redress of grievances. Fine. Unless your petition falls under the limitations of the Freedom of Information Act. Or the PATRIOT act. Or various claims of "executive privilege" or "national security."
Hmmm.....have conservatives managed to "conserve" the First Amenment? Are any prominent conservatives attempting to do so?
Anger of Compassion First Amendment score: Zero. The First Amendment is a dead letter. Your own First Amendment rights? Take a guess.
Amendment II. A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.
Oops.
You know, when the typical conservative opposition to a new gun-banning initiative amounts to "Hey, just enforce the laws already on the books!" while those laws themselves are contrary to the Second Amendment and are, therefore, unconstitutional, you have to wonder. You just have to wonder. Because, think on this: the Second Amendment does not say that "Congress shall not," &etc. Oh no: it clearly and unambiguously reads "shall not be infringed." Infringed, not by Congress, not by California, not by the City of New York. Not by anybody. Shall not be infringed, okay? So all of the 25,000 to 30,000 gun control laws across the land are unconstitutional, aren't they? And therefore illegal. "Enforce the laws already on the books?" Gimme a break. And ("conservative"/Republican) President Bush favors extending the "assault weapons" ban? Yes, he does.
Anger of Compassion Second Amendment score: Zero.
Amendment III. No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
You know, I really thought, at first, that this one would be a gimme. Really. I mean, soldiers in my house? Come on, boys, this one shoulda been a freebie.
But...but..Total Information Awareness? I'd allow Admiral (retired) John Poindexter in my house? Granted, he wouldn't literally be there. But all four of my computers are in my house, damn it, and that's where he'd be stickin' his fingers inta.
Anger of Compassion Third Amendment Score: Zero. Surprise ruling, but Zero nonetheless.
Amendment IV. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Unless you're...well, sorry, but "no knock" warrants? Yup, the War on Drugs trumps this one. And, today, the War on Terror does, too ("We have always been at war with Oceania...").
Anger of Compassion Fourth Amendment score: Zero.
Amendment V. No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb, nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation.
Oops.
Hmm....doesn't that mean no double jeopardy? Wow...unless you're the Los Angeles cops in the Rodney King incident, acquitted in a Los Angeles court but then made to stand trial in federal court for denyng King's "civil rights..." Due process? Wow, so I suppose that "environmental" and "administrative" laws, although never endorsed or permitted by the Constitution, constitute due process? Seems to me that such laws, by arbitrarily mixing the executive and the legislative, are unconstitutional...but hey, maybe it's just me. And I suppose that if you're suspected of being involved in terrorism, well, you're in a case "arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia," jes' cause, and that we should just take the word of the prosecutors aligned against you. The Palmer raids were just a myth, after all.
Anger of Compassion Fifth Amendment score: Zero.
Amendment VI. In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed; which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.
Oops.
Sorry, the War on Drugs trumps this. Too, if you're accused of something to do with terrorism. Military tribubals and all, you know. Yup, we have always been at war with Oceania...
Anger of Compassion Sixth Amendment score: Zero.
Amendment VII. In all Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.
Oops.
Really, see the above: both as to the Rodney King cops--you'd really think they were railroaded, you know?, and as to those accused of terrorism. Remember when the King incident and trial(s) took place, and who was serving in the presidency at the time. Remember who is defending the "military tribunals" today.
Anger of Compassion Seventh Amendment score: Zero.
Amendment VIII. Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
Ah. Unless you are Michael Milken. Or Microsoft.
Anger of Compassion Eighth Amendment score: Zero.
Amendment IX. The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Oops.
Obviously this does not mean that the right to privacy may not be disparaged or denied by Robert Bork or Rick Santorum or Antonin Scalia or others of their ilk. In fact, such vermin are encouraged positively to deny said "right." Oh yes.
Anger of Compassion Ninth Amendment score: Zero. Really, considering that conservatives regard the awkwardly constructed Second Amendment as clear, this one should be a slam-dunk for them. But no, they blow this one too.
Amendment X. 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.
Oh, please...I mean, sure they are, they really are, unless said States get uppity and pass legal referenda in favor of, oh, I dunno, medical marijuana?
Anger of Compassion Tenth Amendment score: Zero.
Final score: Zero. America's "conservatives," are, today, emphatically not interested in "conserving" the Bill of Rights. If any are out there, then come on, name one. Let's "out" him or her.
And may I be so churlish as to ask, if these "amendments" may be so flagrantly ignored--derided, even--then in what sense are they amendments at all? That is, in what sense do they amend, change, or influence anything?
Just asking.
Posted by Craig Ceely at June 30, 2003 01:58 AM