That said, I'm shocked and saddened by the interpretations of certain parts of our foundation document by the extreme right wing, as well as a large chunk of the mainstream GOP.
These arguments, all over the place these days, go along the lines of "we need to get back to the original, explicit intent of the Founding Fathers." Often this argument is augmented by the statement that the Constitution was inspired or dictated by God. Therefore, the logic goes, anything that's not in the Constitution should not be ceded to the federal government. These are a variation of Originalists, much like Justices Scalia and Thomas.
The most common defense of some of these views is the Tenth Amendment, which says that any rights not in this document should default to the States. These defenders are referred to commonly as Tenthers.
Seems like a cogent argument. Why, if the federal government overstepped its authority, you'd think that there would be a public uprising that would tear the country apart. Of course, there was; the Civil War.
This question was violently resolved over a century and a half ago.
However, we have governors threatening to secede if they don't get their way (TX Gov. Rick Perry), Senate candidates threatening "Second Amendment remedies" if they don't get their way (NV Senate candidate Sharron Angle), other Senate candidates insisting that the concept of Separation of Church and State is not in the Constitution (DE Senate candidate Christine O'Donnell), candidates claiming that the right to privacy is not in the Constitution (CO Senate candidate Ken Buck), lots of candidates claiming the 14th Amendment does not apply to certain people... Well, the list goes on and on. (Yes, I know these involve other Amendments, but the argument invariably comes back to the Tenth argument and the Originalist argument--see Rand Paul.)
The thing that should concern anyone is that I'm not citing the crazies on the fringe; these are duly elected Congresspeople or duly nominated candidates of a major party.
So, for their sake, here is a short and by far incomplete list of things that they're arguing should be abolished (and in many cases, they are literally arguing exactly that):
- Any Federal institution not in the Constitution.
- Department of Education
- Department of Energy
- Interstate highways
- Federal Aviation Administration
- Food and Drug Administration
- NASA
- Social Security
- Medicare/Medicaid
- Internal Revenue Service
- Federal Communications Commission
- Too many others to list
- The concept of Judicial Review
That last one's important in my view. If you obviate Judicial Review, which is clearly not in the Constitution, then every ruling by the Supreme Court is obviated. That would include many of the Amendments to the Constitution after the Bill of Rights.
So, if one were to make the argument the Tenthers and others make, then that person would be complicitly treasonous by supporting an illegal and illegitimate federal government.
So: No more driving on the Interstate. No more television or radio or internet. No more store-bought food. No more subsidized gas and other fuels. No more "free" school for your children. No more Medicare or Social Security.
Here's my reply to the Tenthers: The Constitution is our Foundation Document. I think they'd agree with that. A Foundation is something to be built upon. I argue that the document was designed to be flexible enough to change as the country changed, and that was the genius of its authors. This is the Living Document argument, of course. For those who may disagree, I ask: Why are you using the internet right now?
