Must-Read FWP
Posted by TFG on May 1st, 2005
It’s a beautiful Sunday here, and it might be where you are, too. But put this essay from Poretto on your reading list: The Con Game.
Impossbile to excerpt, it’s a mighty, Constitutionalist, Declarationist defense delineation of the duties of the American conservative.
May 1st, 2005 at 8:50 pm
WHAT?! What is that?!
Andrew Sullivan says it’s all about one’s anus. You mean there’s more at stake than that?!
What?
May 2nd, 2005 at 9:20 am
I don’t know how anyone can read that Sullivan guy. Even two years ago, I found so many inconsistencies that it drove me crazy, and I’m no academic.
May 2nd, 2005 at 10:11 am
This essay is a crock of shit. To advocate a strict constructionist approach is to argue for a crippling and stagnant government. We are not talking about a Holy Bible - the constitution lives and breathes and each generation is tasked with interpreting and preserving it. The constitution was written during slavery, before internal combustion, aviation, ICBMs, and space travel. The founders never intended it to be a static document. But then I guess I am just not “American” if I disagree with such drivel.
May 2nd, 2005 at 10:43 am
But then I guess I am just not “American” if I disagree with such drivel.
Don’t be such an illiterate ass.
I’m the one that crossed out the “conservative” part as an editorial statement on my part. If you actually read the essay, you’d know that.
And if you read it, you’d know that it’s not a strict constructionist approach, you soft-headed fool. It’s entirely possible for all Americans to disagree about constitutional and DoI interpretations without moving away from the intent of the Founders. The essay lays out the conservative approach from precisely one (1) internet blogger, with whom I happen to agree. Where’s yours, by the way?
Now, please take your dumb ass away and leave me alone if all you have to add are your ridiculous anonymous “boo hoo, I’m a victim” comments. Anonymous morons get short shrift here. Anonymous people with something to actually say, on the other hand, don’t. And you’ve got absolutely nothing, bub.
May 2nd, 2005 at 11:51 am
Glad to see you are so open-minded about this subject, but I must take you to task about your comments.
1) I was referring to the author when I made the “American” comment. The tone and substance of the article implies that those who disagree are not good citizens. You carry forth such ideas yourself with your reply. God forbid somebody should disagree with you on your blog.
2) I may be an ass, but I am not illiterate.
3) How can you argue that this is not a strict constructionist approach? The author clearly says that judges should not be able to interpret the constitution. What do you call that?
3) Since when am I anonymous? I signed my name and you have known me for 30 years.
4) Where do you get “boo hoo, I’m a victim” from my comments? I don’t claim to be a victim of anything. The only crying I am doing is that I wasted my time reading this pompous bullshit.
5) I did have something to say and I said it. Just because you disagree doesn’t invalidate my comments. Open up your mind and you might just learn something.
May 2nd, 2005 at 1:22 pm
1) Where are people who disagree called “bad” Americans? Quote it. It ain’t there.
2) Stipulated, with reservation.
3) If you are saying that “strict constructionalist” means staying within the bounds of the Declaration of Independence (what set us down the path of America qua America and often ignored in philosophical arguments), the Constitution, and the wishes and intentions of the Founding Fathers — well, yeah, I’m a strict constructionist. With precious few mistakes, those three things have stood the test of time, but most importantly, the test of working as a form of government. In fact, the most successful form of government ever in the history of ever.
Second 3) I don’t know the number of Tonys in the world, but I bet there are a lot. With no email address, blog URL, webpage, or other identifying characteristics (The Senator, perhaps), how am I to know just which one stopped by to drop a turd?
4) “But I guess I’m not an American if” — show me where anybody said that. It’s a stupid straw-man setting yourself up as a victim of oppression by mean old somethings.
5) You didn’t say much. What am I supposed to learn? That the Founding Fathers didn’t have ICBMs? Thanks for the brilliant insight. Pick a point and argue it if you feel so strongly. I’m happy to discuss particular points, but I’m not going to re-write the whole article here in the comments. Nor do I care to deal with slag-offs that make such intellectual points as slavery being codified in the original Constitution (asked and answered) or utilize such debate tactics as “crock of shit.”
If you’re really The Senator, then get with it. We’ve had knock-down drag-outs over philosophical and political quandaries before, but they started with something a little more substantial than “crock of shit.” Most of them ended up at that point, but I’m not drinking yet.
May 2nd, 2005 at 1:30 pm
PS Very important point here, Senator. If you’re not a conservative, then Fran’s essay probably is not for you. I can see how, if you’re not a conservative, you might think it drivel and find it meaningless.
May 2nd, 2005 at 2:48 pm
Well, I am a conservative and that’s what pisses me off the most - reading someone with a litmus test for conservatism.
In his last paragraph, the author equates conservatism with being an American and therefore implies that anything less is un-American. In the fifties, radicals like that used the “C” word for those who disagreed. Now its the “L” word.
The author says “… the maintenance of an absolutely strict -constructionist approach to all written law, most especially constitutional law, is a necessity for the preservation of liberty, and an essential element in the conservative program.” Don’t delude yourself into thinking this has ever been the case. The constutution has been interpreted since at least 1803 - probably thousands of times. We seemed to have preserved our liberty somehow through it all.
Sorry if I threw you off on my “ICBM argument” The point that was lost on you is that our founders never intended us to be stuck in a 1770s time warp. Again, it is a living document. That is why it has lasted so long.
Why do you keep saying that I am posing as a victim? Is that on the list of conservative talking points? I certainly feel empowered.
I guess the thing that concerns me the most is the “us vs. them” menatality of the article. Politics is not all or nothing - it is compromise and the willingness to do so. Our founders were a pretty liberal bunch of guys. Maybe we can learn something from them.
May 2nd, 2005 at 5:14 pm
A) It’s not a damn litmus test — it’s an essay on what one man thinks of the American conservative movement. You’re welcome to agree or disagree. Nobody is going to say you can’t call yourself a conservative. Your definition just differs from what Francis believes (and what I believe).
B) Nobody has said that interpretation has not taken place. What in that essay makes you believe that either of us believe that it has not been thus? Clearly it has - slavery is gone and all men and all women enjoy full rights as Americans. We also banned booze and unbanned it. Neither Francis nor I would argue that is wrong or bad, except the booze part. The point is that interpretation needs to stay true to the principles espoused in the first part of the essay. If you have an argument against those, some sacred cow as FWP puts it, then make it. Otherwise, you’re arguing with something that’s not there.
C) This ICBM/1770s red herring needs to stop. What was good and moral about the principles used to found this country is the same now as it was then. It remains a living document only so long as we are willing to not kill it.
D) OK, you tell me what your little “I’m not an American if I disagree” speech is all about. What’s your point? I say you’re assuming a mantle of aggrievedness that doesn’t exist, but go ahead, tell me what you mean by it. And drop the bullshit about “talking points.” This isn’t a Sunday morning politico show. I don’t have freaking talking points. I’m not even a registered party member.
E) Perhaps you’ve not noticed that 21st century politics is us v. them. It has been for a looooong time, as you know. That doesn’t mean there can’t be compromise. Quite clearly there can be. But some things aren’t open to compromise, and those are many of the things that Francis elucidates, and I will stand behind them 100%. I’m sorry that concerns you as a conservative, but if you don’t like it or the way I practice conservatism, then you better start making your own points and arguments that don’t include internal combusion.
Actually, I would love to hear how ICBMs and internal combustion has changed how we should interpret the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution. I’ll even publish it here for debate. So let me know when you’re ready to post.
May 2nd, 2005 at 6:14 pm
Thanks for the plug, Scott. And Tony: It’s always nice to see I can still offend someone. Now and then I worry that I’ve lost the knack.
If I were to pick a single phrase from our political lexicon that most nearly equates to American conservatism, it would be strict constructionism. Because strict construction is an inherent brake on government power and action; if it’s not in the plain, public meaning of the written law and the written Constitution, government is forbidden to do it. If it’s important enough, pass a new law or amend the Constitution, as appropriate. If you can’t, then not enough people agree with your aims yet, so either make your case better and more widely, or sit down and shut up so the rest of us can enjoy the game.
By contrast, loose construction, such as has been practiced this century past, has awarded governments thousands of powers the Framers specifically intended to deny them. Liberals love loose construction; it’s the heart of their approach to government. All they have to do is allege a “penumbra” or an “emanation” in the Constitution that no one but some squinty jurist can see. Add a jigger of “international opinion,” a dash of “evolving standards,” and a sprig of “current thinkers,” and you have the liberal growth cocktail for government.
If you’re not a strict constructionist, you’re not a conservative; at best, you’re a muddle-head trying to “pass.” And if you’re not passionately dedicated to the conservation of the founding ideals of this country — individual liberty, private property, free enterprise, and strictly limited government — you’re not an American; at best, you’re a poseur.
May 2nd, 2005 at 10:19 pm
Because strict construction is an inherent brake on government power and action; if it’s not in the plain, public meaning of the written law and the written Constitution, government is forbidden to do it.
Harry Jaffa has argued that the strict constructionism of, say, a Robert Bork actually suffers from some of the same problems as the legal positivism of liberals.
His solution — and what Scott has been advocating (if I’m reading him correctly) — is a constitutionalism informed by the political philosophy of the Declaration (which is, effectively, the preamble to both federal constitutions this nation has had in its history).
The Progressives — who really bequeathed us today’s liberal “living constitutionalism” — knew what they were doing in delinking the Declaration (and by extension, natural right) from American constitutionalism. Conservatives would be wise to re-link it.
I would argue — like the Claremont crew — that “strict constructionist” legal positivism really doesn’t get you where you want to be, and it comes up short as conservative constitutionalism goes. You’ve got to have political philosophy (natural right) to get you the rest of the way.
May 3rd, 2005 at 8:32 am
The lingo is getting thick on the ground here. Where do I find the Unschooled Layman’s Dictionary for things like “strict construcionism” and “legal positivism” and “living constitutionalism”? I feel like I may be the guy in The Princess Bride, and it might not mean what I think it means.
Kevin, you’re right — I am advocating exactly what you’re saying. I’ve wandered into this position somehow over the years, but I can’t give chapter and verse on why or where. That’s the problem with being an auto-didact.
May 3rd, 2005 at 10:31 am
Why do some people view the Constitution as a sacred document which God handed to the Founders who unanimously acclaimed it to be a perfect document never subject to interpretation? The Founders fought over every word. They attacked and counterattacked each other and eventually compromised over almost every aspect of the document. They never intended to put a padlock on it. Our nation would not have survived if it required 2/3 of Congress and 3/4 of the states just to interpret the law.
Our Founders were a disparate group of wise men. They knew that times would change and the government would have to change also or it would collapse from its inefficiency.
In their wisdom, they gave us the Ninth Amendment which says that people have rights which are not listed in the Constitution. They gave Congress the “necessary and proper” clause so that Congress could have powers which are not specifically listed in the document. The Tenth Amendment reserved unlisted powers to the states and the people. The Fourteenth Amendment gave people “the equal protection of the laws.” How can anyone argue that these provisions require no interpretation?
Yes, federal judges are not elected by the people. But, the president that nominates them is elected and so is the Senate that confirms or rejects the nominations. There is your accountability. And if Congress is unhappy with the judiciary, it can destroy the jurisdiction of every court except the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court’s decisions can be overruled by re-writing laws or, in the extreme case, amending the Constitution.
Our Founders thought all of this through but apparantly you haven’t. You don’t have to be a strict constructionist to be a conservative anymore than you need to be a Baptist to get into Heaven.
May 3rd, 2005 at 11:14 am
OK, you’ve made the same argument about 100 times. Rebuttals have been posted. In fact, rebuttals existed in the original article. But here you go, in a nutshell:
I am trying to slow the government assumption of power over the individual.
The judicial branch has overreached. That is why we’re having this conversation. If you don’t agree that the judicial branch has overreached, then I don’t know what to say.Strike that - beside the point and I don’t wish to support it right now.I’m not trying to convince you, I’m telling you what my thinking is. Telling me ad nauseum about the fallibility of the Consititution and how it’s a living document is not going to change my mind. It is a bedrock philosophy of mine that the Constitution, along with the Declaration, the various writings of the Founders, and the careful deliberations over the years of people much smarter than me, it is as close to infallible as we are going to find on this earth when it comes to establishing and running a state where what Kevin calls “natural rights” are the objective of that state.
And quit telling me what I have and haven’t thought through - it’s condescending and very annoying and makes me curse. Perhaps instead you could provide a link to something that might illuminate my path, sensei.
May 3rd, 2005 at 11:32 am
Let’s see, you’ve called me an “illiterate ass”, a “soft-headed fool”, a “dumb ass” and a “moron.” But you don’t want me to be condescending?
I have no links to refer you. I have only the U.S. Constitution as my guide. Please read it objectively.
May 3rd, 2005 at 11:38 am
Thanks for the input, Professor. I’ll keep my eyes peeled for your blog and model myself after the way you treat anonymous commenters who call things “pile of shit.” Any other advice on how I should run my website?
May 3rd, 2005 at 11:57 am
Pictures of pretty girls would be nice.
May 3rd, 2005 at 1:05 pm
Here.