Today is Bill of Rights Day. We should take note of it, because one of the political assets available to Americans is the lip service paid to those ten amendments. I wrote, a few years back, a lament on our politicians taking the Bill of Rights seriously -- or not, as I argue the case to be.
I don't think things are really any better, and in fact in some ways the situation has gotten worse. Sarbanes-Oxley, for example, is a violation of the First Amendment, but it's the law of the land. Senator John McCain, co-sponsor of the odious McCain-Feingold campaign finance "reform" free speech atrocity, is the probable front-runner for the 2008 Republican nomination, so he's actually been rewarded for violating his oath of office.
The Second Amendment may be enjoying a bit of resurgence. At the very least, Democratic politicians running for office seem to accept that being reflexively pro-gun control can be a swift and sure ticket for defeat, so some of them are running away from that. And I liked the news of this victory in the Ohio Senate, where the legislators overrode a veto by Republican governor Bob Taft. Wow, Democrats better than a Republican on the right to self-defense. And a guy named Taft, to boot. Talk about rolling over in the grave...And then there's this. But I see the beginnings of promise here. I'm in league with those who say that gun rights are civil rights. You bet.
The Fourth Amendment, however, took a kick in the balls from the Supreme Court's decision on "no-knock" warrants and Associate Justice Scalia's assertion that police forces all over the country are becoming more "professional."
But the Fifth is in dire straits, too. Remember the Supremes and their li'l Kelo decision? One nice bit of fallout, though, is that state legislatures across the land are rewriting their own statutes to make eminent domain property grabs at least a little bit harder to accomplish. This may gain some traction, and it may even spur Americans to begin thinking, as I do, that eminent domain should go the way of the peculiar institution. If conscription is immoral and evil (it is), and the federal government is not entitled to take your life and use it as they see fit, then why should the government be able to take your house? As Ayn Rand wrote, there can be no unchosen obligations.
The Bush White House mandarins still like to argue that the President is never wrong (shades of Richard Nixon's "if the President does it, it's legal"), so I don't see any great respect coming up for the Sixth Amendment, either. Too much habeas corpus, too many "national security" considerations. And I wonder when the "law and order" Republicans, or "civil liberties" Democrats, intend to speak out against the Nifong scandal in North Carolina? Don't hold your breath.
Are we doing any better with regard to the Ninth? I've always thought that the Ninth and Tenth Amendments were thoughtfully crafted, and were a good set of long-shot hopes for the restoration of American liberties:
Amendment IX. The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
As I said, it'd be a long shot...but, via Glenn Reynolds, I see this abstract in which a law professor argues -- in the Texas Law Review -- that the Ninth was intended to be taken seriously: "In short, the Amendment is what it appears to be: a meaningful check on federal power and a significant guarantee of individual liberty." I like that: "meaningful." Oh my yes.
But at the end of the list, we come to another defeat:
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.
You have heard—and will continue to hear—many explanations for the election results. You have been told, for instance, that Democratic obstruction stymied the president, and leftist defeatism undermined support for the war. These answers will not cut it. Republicans held a political majority in Washington for six years, and the President was given all the resources and authority he asked for—including a solid re-election two years ago.
You have been told that Democrats wanted to spend like crazy on domestic programs, and that they turned on Bush because he sought to allow Americans greater choice in how they spend their money. But the president has increased spending to a degree not seen since LBJ and FDR, and has not vetoed a single spending bill.
It has been said that the election was about values—meaning, religious values—and that you lost because you were not "Conservative" enough. But what does this mean? That you did not lobby strongly enough for government intervention in family affairs, education, and science? Religious conservatives—such as Senator Santorum—were also soundly defeated. The American people expressed no desire for more religious values in government.
It remains telling that the American people were solidly on the president's side when he promised a reduction in government coercion at home, and a victory in the war overseas (over 80% supported the invasion of Iraq)—and that they withdrew their support only after he failed to follow through on his promises.
I'll offer a different reason for your defeat. You lost because you ceased being Republicans, and became new, "Neo-," Conservatives. You were too Conservative, and not Republican enough. To earn my vote, it is Conservatism that you must reject, in favor of freedom, rights, and reason. You must once again become Republicans—the party of the American Constitutional Republic.
I think so.
Earlier this year, I linked to Jesse Walker's advice for Democrats, and we could use his model ("Be good on the issues where the left is supposed to be good...") to give some advice to the Republicans:
Be good where the right is supposed to be good...In general, stand up for fewer regulations and lower tax rates (and fewer taxes, for that matter) ...you know, the free market. Take federalism seriously and stay out of the states' affairs and mind your own business in other matters, too. And when you set out to fight a war...fight the damn war.Posted by Craig Ceely at December 15, 2006 03:59 PM