I have been asked, on occasion, many questions regarding my political rhetoric, how it was formed, and with whom my allegiances lie. When I reply that I'm a Constitutional Conservative, the most common assumption is that I'm a faithful member of the Republican old-guard born again in the impressionable body of a high-school senior. However, such a statement fails to capture the wider scope of the Constitutional ideology and how it should be applied to the political, economic, and social questions surfacing today. I describe Constitutional Conservatism as something more than a political doctrine because it is the seed from which all my opinions may be formed. In order to make it easier for you to see where I'm coming from on issues ranging from Global Warming to NAFTA, I believe I should reflect on the principles of Constitutional Conservatism, where it comes from, and how I will apply it to future voting, blogging, (and campaign?) decisions.
In his commentary on the Pledge of Allegiance, John Wayne stated that "no man in pursuit of an honest life should be denied his chance."
Man was not created to serve the government. The government was created to serve man. However it seems that it has too often manifested itself as a totalitarian state. In the 20th century, totalitarian governments emerged unlike any that had been seen before - resulting in the deaths of millions of civilians. It was not war that killed more people than any other scourge in the 20th century - it was government. Luckily, in America, it can be debated that the government has, for the most part, presented itself as more of a nuisance rather than a threat to life and limb.
One of the few functions Constitutional Conservatives believe the government should serve is as a peacekeeper. This means that one of its few, primary mechanisms is as an agent of justice. By acting as an arbitrator, government has the duty to maintain the rights of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" by removing those who would inflict harm on the populace and threaten free exercise of those rights. This means criminals forfeit their freedom by performing crimes against humanity. These crimes are punishable if they intrude on the ability of others to exercise ALL their constitutional rights. Government is not a "parental figure" who has the power to consider our freedoms a "privilege" and can nullify them at will. ALL the rights guaranteed by the Bill of Rights are sacred and protected.
An example about gun control may be used here. If a disturbed young man purchases a Colt .45 and uses it to kill his step-brother and as a coercive device to force his beautiful, female classmate to engage in sexual relations with him, then the gun should be taken away from the young man and the young man should be incarcerated for life. However, too often, it seems that such an act results in the kid being placed on parole (getting off with an "insanity plea") and the man down the street (and the rest of us) losing his right to keep a concealed weapon in his breast pocket. Americans have long despised the "group mentality" and have preferred to focus on the individual. With this in mind, it is clear that the rights of law-abiding citizens to carry handguns should be preserved. The rights of criminals to carry the same gun should be remanded.
However, because the Constitutional Conservative doctrine staunchly holds on to the American tradition that everyone is "innocent until proven guilty", the state may NOT strip an individual of his freedom or his life without due process of law. The accused has a rigid set of rights that must be followed closely lest government overreach its authority. The letter of the law is to be interpreted verbatim and not stretched in an attempt to silence people who may pose a "threat" to the political powers that are currently in charge. The only offenses that should be punishable by imprisonment or removal of rights are true, criminal acts that are undeniably immoral and dangerous to the citizenry - not the government. Speaking out against those in power, no matter how vocal or politically threatening they may be, cannot be silenced at any time. It is only when they commit an undeniably violent act that they may be reprimanded.
Government, besides being a minister of justice, is also obligated to protect the country as a whole. This means a strong, well-funded, well-trained military is required at all times. Because of America's status as a super-power, it is both lauded and disliked - sometimes hated. As a result, protection of American life (both Americans in the homeland and abroad) must be upheld. For this reason, a strong military is maintained so as to protect the borders from drug traffickers, terrorists, and invasion while also saving American citizens taken hostage by foreign pirates.
However, use of the military as a kind of "national police force" or "domestic security force" is verboten. Giving the federal government the power to police the homeland poses a threat to inherent American rights and opens the door to a slippery-slope that can lead to totalitarian control. Domestic security can and should only be maintained by a police force organized by local communities with a jurisdiction limited to that community. By decentralizing the police force and placing administrative duties in the hands of local citizens and communities, it becomes hard to organize into a full-scale, internal military. This guarantees that domestic security forces remain "peace officers" who have to answer to fellow members of their community rather than simply acting as pawns of the federal government.
These principles, allowing the government to act as a minister of justice and defense against outside invasion and coercement, are meant to preserve the opportunity for each of us to live a complete American Life and enjoy the liberties guaranteed by the Constitution.
On the topic of liberty, Abraham Lincoln stated it best in his little-known Address to a Sanitary Fair (1864);
The world has never had a good definition of the word liberty, and the American people, just now, are much in want of one. We all declare for liberty; but in using the same word we do not all mean the same thing. With some the word liberty may mean for each man to do as he pleases with himself, and the product of his labor; while with others the same word may mean for some men to do as they please with other men, and the product of other men’s labor. Here are two, not only different, but incompatible things, called by the same name—liberty. And it follows that each of the things is, by the respective parties, called by two different and incompatible names—liberty and tyranny.
Lincoln is, unquestionably, the greatest liberator among American presidents. Despite his measures to consolidate authority during the tumultuous Civil War period, his presidency resulted in the abolition of the single greatest threat to human liberty - slavery. Therefore, who better illustrates (and orates) America's fundamental desire for liberty?
As he stated, many of us view liberty as different things. We often lump it together with "the pursuit of happiness." The Constitutional Conservative viewpoint stipulates that laws may not be established that limit or abolish the essential liberties and rights guaranteed under the Bill of Rights. It is in this area where the Constitutional Conservative viewpoint becomes far more libertarian than centrist. "Big Government" is seen as a threat to all liberty and is to be controlled. The Founders left the groundwork for a balanced government which is meant to remain a manageable size in order to develop infrastructure, prosecute those who trample on the rights of others, and protect the homeland. Despite these principles, it has been expanded drastically.
The government became an intrusive force in our everyday lives because of the "elastic" and "necessary and proper" clauses (as well as the "interstate commerce clause") in the US Constitution - three clauses on which Presidents and the United States Congress have seized to levy income taxes, institute inter-racial busing in schools, and develop a deficit. The rest of the Constitution tends to be a narrowly construed list of rules and regulations that leave little room for expansion of power. By twisting the language of these short sentences, the government has collectively grown too powerful, large, and ineffective.
The main pillar on which our doctrine rests is the preservation and careful interpretation of the Constitution of the United States. This is not a claim that the 200-year-old, physical document itself must be preserved. Rather, the principles espoused in it - the principles established in order to keep government from becoming too powerful and allowing one branch to prevail over another - should be maintained. This means that the rights guaranteed under the Bill of Rights (the first ten amendments) should be protected and never, under any ordinary circumstance, be permanently revoked, reduced, or revised.
The amendment process was intended to be long and strenuous in order to prevent needless and power-grab amendments from being approved. Therefore, it seems apparent that the Constitution was meant to be changeable, but not the "living, breathing document" that liberals tend to consider it to be. It was, and is, meant to be in a coma - for good reason. 
When Constitutional Conservatives look at new laws and amendments, they request they meet a certain set of guidelines;
1) The laws must extend freedom to where it was not present before. This tenet has been met on many occasions - including giving women and citizens of all races the right to vote - and should be applauded.
2) They may not nullify the amendments of the Bill of Rights. This means that "the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed" means "the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed" and "freedom of speech" is "freedom of speech."
3) They must increase equality of opportunity - not equality of condition. This means that no man, no matter what his/her race or color, should be denied his chance to succeed- not no man should be denied a welfare check. Redistribution of wealth is verboten. Trust-busting is acceptable when a company gets too large and powerful and starts to keep other companies from competing.
4) Observance of the 10th Amendment - that unstated powers not delegated to the federal government and not withheld from the states are reserved to the states and, vicariously, the people - must be considered. Over the past hundred years, this requirement has been effectively ignored (i.e the federal government establishing the Board of Education) and has resulted in large and cumbersome bureaucracies handling aspects of American life that the framers had reserved for states and communities.
These four guidelines are only the tip of the unmelting iceberg. The main frame of mind of a Constitutional Conservative states that when it doubt, use logic and leave emotion out of decision making.
With the undeniable liberties protected by the Constitution at his disposal, the American man (and woman) is able to put those tools and gifts to good use and "pursue happiness." This happiness, naturally, can take any form. It can be economic, social, or sexual - as long as it does not deny others the equal chance to pursue those goals. If it does, then the rights must be taken away from the individual - not the group.
Beyond Unalienable Rights: Dissolving Government
The United States was founded on the principles of enlightenment figures - especially John Locke - whose writings influenced the Declaration of Independence. One of the central justifications the Colonies had for breaking away from Great Britain was stated in the Declaration:
To secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its power in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.
The framers of the Constitution were conscious to add methods by which Americans can maintain their inherent right to dissolve government. A Federalist government (where power is shared between the states and the federal government) managed by free elections allows the people to peacefully reorganize all branches of government (except the judiciary). This is a distinctive feature of the American government in that, thus far, has allowed elections to remain peaceful transitions of power.However, should an individual (or group) believe himself worthy to be a permanent ruler (or if the American government begins to place excessive burdens that hinder the people's inherent rights), the people have the right to organize peacefully and demand protection of their rights.If peaceful organization is not enough, the second amendment guarantees the presence of an armed populace - which means, if necessary, the people may rise up in a full scale rebellion and institute a renewed government by force. Whether or not they use the same Constitution (and they should, in such a case) is not stipulated.
Constitutional Conservatives, therefore, don't consider it treasonous to organize against the government - as long as the government has not abandoned or compromised the original intent of the Constitution.
We are fortunate that, thus far, we are relatively independent of the government. However, the coming years suggest a sweeping change from this fundamental, American condition. Our current president and congress seem intent on ignoring American principles of life, liberty, and pursuit of economic happiness in favor of fashioning a government modeled after Socialist Europe. Therefore, we should remain vigilant to ensure that the freedoms and opportunities our forefathers enjoyed remain preserved for our and future generations. But it's going be a long, bumpy ride.
I'm willing to put up a fight. Are you?
A Republic, ma'am... If you can keep it.
- Benjamin Franklin (1791)
Posts
