RIP : US Constitution 1789 - 2012

Yesterday, the US Constitution died.  Farewell fine document.

The Supreme Court ruling yesterday on the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (what a euphemism, eh?) signaled the end to rational, conservative jurisprudence.  By a 5-4 decision, with the presumably decisive vote being the Chief Justice John Roberts, the Supreme Court ruled that the Act, known as Obamacare commonly, was constitutional under the power of Congress to tax.  To tax. 

Hmm...from a 2009 interview on This Week...

"STEPHANOPOULOS: That may be, but it's still a tax increase.
OBAMA: No. That's not true, George. The — for us to say that you've got to take a responsibility to get health insurance is absolutely not a tax increase."

I recall as a citizen the absurd arguments accompanying the frenzied push to pass this legislation.  The supporters were insistent that they were not increasing our taxes.  That was the guise under which this legislation was passed.  The Act itself does not reference tax increases.

Yet, we have our Supreme Court Chief Justice proclaiming in his decision that it is indeed a tax.  The Solicitor General representing the Executive Branch argued to the Court that it was not a tax but a mandate with a penalty attached.  Indeed, for the purposes of accepting review of the case, the Supreme Court separately decided that it was not a tax as it pertained to the Anti-Injunction Act.  If they had declared it a tax for that part of the case, they could not pass judgement on it until the taxes were implemented in 2014.

We had an historic opportunity to see our Constitutional Republic restored to a small but significant part by a proper conservative ruling.   This would have rolled back the federal usurpation of power under the Commerce Clause.  Some conservative pundits - people whose opinions I greatly respect - have tried to argue that this was actually a constitutional victory for conservativism because the liberal side of the Court acknowledged SOME limitations on Congress' powers under the Commerce Clause.  But this is a hollow victory.  I call it a "booby" prize.

We got a massive, never-ending, intrusive new entitlement program in exchange for that limitation on governmental powers that is summarized as: "Well, government is not allowed to do EVERYTHING it wants."

If the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court finds it acceptable to go out of his way to find a law constitutional via an argument contradicted by the defense counsel, contradicted by a subsequent interpretation in the same case, contradicted by the clear language in the written law, and contradicted by the public record on how the law was presented to the People at passage...

Well, then, we have the death of the US Constitution.

There was an opportunity for judicial leadership.  What we got instead was cowardice.

Revolutions - Contrast & Compare

I was inspired by a certain talk show host to do a little quick Internet research on the French Revolution.  Wikipedia told me this:

The French Revolution (French: Révolution française; 1789–1799), was a period of radical social and political upheaval in France that had a major impact on France and indeed all of Europe. The absolute monarchy that had ruled France for centuries collapsed in three years. French society underwent an epic transformation as feudal, aristocratic and religious privileges evaporated under a sustained assault from radical left-wing political groups, masses on the streets, and peasants in the countryside. Old ideas about tradition and hierarchy - of monarchy, aristocracy and religious authority - were abruptly overthrown by new Enlightenment principles of equality, citizenship and inalienable rights.

So how does this compare with the American Revolution?  These after all were contemporaries with leaders of both reading much of the same literature of the time.  The French Revolution turned bloody and chaotic with a general uprising of the populace against the establishment.  Once the "Republic" was established, more chaos ensued culminating in the Reign of Terror when tens of thousands were killed. 

By contrast, the American Revolution turned into a conventional war between nations.  While bloody, it was not a chaotic uprising of the masses.  Nor did the chaos linger after the War was over.  The final status of the new nation took some time to sort out but it was left to an intellectual and political sorting out period culminating in the beautiful document of the US Constitution.

So what was the root of the difference in outcomes?  To me, the difference is clear.  In the French Revolution the source of the movement was in the masses driven by anti-establishment fervor and rebellion against the ruling classes - the royalty, the aristocrats, the religious leaders.  In the American Revolution, the source of the movement was in the enlightened leadership - the aristocrats, the religious leaders, the colonial politicians and businessmen - the ruling classes.  In the colonies, the aristocracy, subordinate to the king, rose up against the status quo..  In France, the liberal intellectuals whipped the masses into wholesale rejection of the ruling class and aristocracy.  So, rather than changing merely the political system, the French Revolution changed the whole of society from top to bottom, inside and out.  Confusion reigned and terror ensued.

Let's keep this history lesson in mind as we participate in transformations and political movements in our country.  If you want change, work for it honestly without chaoctic upheaval.  Our system of government allows for peaceful, radical changes to be worked within the system.  Losing patience and taking shortcuts by force feeding change via popular uprising only leads to destruction and hate.  If you want change, work within the system and make your argument, win your argument.  If you can't win your argument within the system, there is probably a good reason for it.  The Occupy Wall Street chaos is about disruption and popular uprising.  Once it moves beyond making itself heard through traditional means of protest and into chaos and disruption, it ceases to be respected.

Likewise, let us see a political movement that incorporates real leaders in the establishment.  I see politicians that want to stick with the status quo, not be change agents.  If we don't see change leadership of the ruling classes - business, religious, political, then populist, chaotic movements like Occupy Wall Street will continue to find traction.   This is good for no one.