No matter how bad things get in our country, most conservatives still retain a sense of pride and optimism in the United States because of our history, tradition, and especially our Constitution. Patriotic conservatives believe that the Constitution is an everlasting protection against tyranny in our land. But is it really? I posit that the Constitution of the United States has failed to prevent the erosion of our heritage and our natural rights that we see today.
The End Of The Constitution
8 Comments
Leave a Reply
Support Men Of The West
Latest from Culture
Livy, A Narrator of History
"Even in his own time he was known as the greatest of Roman historians."
“The Castle of Time” by Lord Dunsany
Presently there was a stir in one of the houses, and a bat flew out of the door into the daylight, and three mice came running out of the doorway down the
A Compact Renewed
It was the fourth of July, 1809, and thunderous, close evening. In Lobau, the largest of the five islands on the Danube, where were the imperial headquarters, the huge machinery of war,
A Memory of Robert E. Lee
"Everyone obeyed him, not because they feared but because they loved him."
The Venerable Bede
"Arising from the gloom of a dark age, he is still considered one of the most illustrious of the learned men of England."
False premise. The Constitution could not fail to protect, for that was never it’s purpose. The government–working within the confines outlined by the Constitution–was supposed to protect and uphold Natural Liberties. The government began, very soon after the formation of the Union, to fail in that role. It must have been totally obvious by 1860 that the Union government had gone way beyond what the Constitution described as proper government. The failure of the Confederacy to gain independence, and the continual failure of the People to “Throw off such government,” is what went wrong, not the writings of Jefferson.
In short, the __people__ have failed, not the document. The document cannot fail for it does not possess the power to try anything to begin with.
I think we are actually on the same page here. My premise is not that the Constitution should save us, but that the idea common to a lot of conservatives that it will save us is false. I wrote a full essay based on this podcast episode (https://declineandfall.blog/2019/07/26/the-constitution-will-not-save-us/) and said:
“Founding Father John Adams remarked that “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” Keep this in mind as we discuss the role of the Constitution to the present day.”
The Constitution did not forge the American people, rather it was a reflection of the American people, and like you said, was supposed to constrain the government from infringing upon our natural rights. By 1860, a majority of people in power interpreted the Constitution to mean secession was illegal and impossible. (I disagree with that conclusion, as many other posts will attest to.) Now, we have judges and elected officials interpreting it to mean abortion rights, gay marriage, etc. You’re right – the Constitution did not change, but the people did, which is why the idea that the document will save us in the end is a false premise.
Agreed…
I should have spent a bit more time researching your ideas before I reacted. I am sorry that I knee-jerk reacted to your ideas.
No worries – I appreciate you commenting. Feedback keeps me on my toes, as well as sharpening and clarifying my arguments.
The constitution enabled Leviathan to grow into the present monster. We should have stuck with the Articles of Confederation if we desired to govern ourselves.
It’s a paradox, isn’t it? A United States governed by the Articles might never have achieved the heights that we did under the Constitution, but those who lived in it might have enjoyed more freedom and liberty. At least until they were conquered by Mexico.
I confess I read the essay rather than listening to the episode, I’m more of a reader than a listener. About the 17th Amendment, senators were originally similar to ambassadors. Nowadays the government of Albania has a representative in Washington D. C., and the government of Alabama does not. This 3-year-old article by Heron is still relevant:
On The Senate
I try to turn the really good scripts into essays when I have the time. I agree with you about Senators – they were supposed to be the voice of the states in DC, but now the states have little to no voice at all. Hence the drastic expansion of federal power and the reduction of states to little more than administrative districts over the past century.