The Constitution: A Rallying Point

August 31, 2008 by Aspen Eggimann · Leave a Comment 

“Where are we going from here?”

I’ve been wondering this a lot lately, in regards to America. I hear and read theories about the Information Age and what it will bring, I learn about historical cycles predicting what to expect in the future, and observe the numerous political agendas proposed for the nation, yet still this question remains in a large part unanswered.

It may be difficult or nearly impossible to answer with clarity exactly where we are going, or to make a prediction that would quiet the concerns for the future. While pondering the question I read the following quote from Thomas Jefferson:

“Though written constitutions may be violated in moments of passion or delusion, yet they furnish a text to which those who are watchful may again rally and recall the people.” –Thomas Jefferson to Joseph Priestley, 1802

A written document that immortalizes principles and provides ongoing direction for generations is essential to maintain a strong and free nation.

“The Constitution is a written instrument. As such, its meaning does not alter. That which it meant when it was adopted, it means now.”
– South Carolina v. United States, 199 U.S. 437, 448 (1905)

The principles remain fast in the document, though the actions of men may not follow those principles. The violation of a constitution was foreseen by the Founders as inevitable; men would lose their perspective and deviate from the Constitution in moments of passion — no matter how much the “chains of the Constitution” bound them down. Having a written constitution does more than bind men for a time, however; its real strength is that it provides a rallying point for the People to turn to when the nation flounders and when guidance is needed.

It’s clear that we have deviated from the Constitution in many ways throughout our history, and recent years have been no different. From the repeal of habeas corpus for specified “enemy combatants” to the Patriot Act, we can see the distance we have come from the founding.

The governments’ disregard of our founding document was brought home to me when I read the following story from Ron Paul:

“In 2002, as war with Iraq loomed, I proposed that congress officially declare war against Iraq, making clear that I intended to oppose my own measure. The point was to underscore our constitutional responsibility to declare war before commencing major military operations, rather than leaving the decision to the president or passing resolutions that delegate to the president the decision-making power over war. The chairman of the International Relations Committee responded by saying, ‘There are things in the Constitution that have been overtaken by events, by time. Declaration of war is one of them. There are things no longer relevant to a modern society. We are saying to the president, use your judgment. [What you have proposed is] inappropriate, anachronistic; it isn’t done any more.’
 
What a relief that we have people in our government who will keep us posted on which constitution provisions they have decided are no longer ‘relevant!’” [Ron Paul; The Revolution: A Manifesto, pg 53]

As a nation that has disregarded its constitution and now strongly questions its stability and future freedom the question, “Where are we going from here?” demands our attention. We have, through fear and passion, given up much of our freedoms. But it need not continue. For we will decide what is next. By using the Constitution as a rallying point to recall a people we will regain the freedom and prosperity that the Founders fought for.

In the end our freedom and our future lie with those that are watchful, those that will take initiative in restoring the Constitution. As Thomas Edison said, “The strength of the Constitution, lies in the will of the people to defend it.”

If the question remains, “Where are we going from here?”, the answer is “Exactly where we take ourselves.” If Jefferson is right, if moments of passion will pass and those who are watching can rally the people, then let it be back to the Constitution.

Have YOU read and do you understand the Constitution? Will you become a constitutional scholar and help restore the American Republic?

Move the Cause of Liberty by (1) subscribing to the Sentinel, a free weekly newsletter boldly illuminating the principles of freedom in a darkening nation, and (2) pledging your Life, Liberty, and Sacred Honor to the Cause by signing the Declaration of Dependence.

Email This Post Email This Post
Copyright © 2008 by The Cause of Liberty. All rights reserved.

Libertarianism: The Threat and the Opportunity

August 16, 2008 by Stephen Palmer · 11 Comments 

How To Influence the Definition and Direction of Contemporary Libertarianism

Those who focus their energy on combating socialism are fighting a war that, by and large, has already been won. Collectivism, though at its apex and seemingly more powerful than ever, is on the decline; individualism is on the rise. With its rise, individualism, commonly known as libertarianism, poses threats to American culture and governance. It also provides significant, positive opportunities that have not been available for more than a century.

It is imperative that we identify the dangers of mainstream libertarian thought and provide alternatives in order to capitalize on the opportunity to create a balanced, sustainable, free, and just society. As is so common throughout history, we may swing the pendulum from collectivism to libertarianism to find that they are both equally dangerous and unsustainable. The danger posed by libertarianism — or the opportunity — is predicated upon how it will be defined and practically applied.

The Decline of Collectivism

Collectivist institutions are splitting at the seams and crumbling due to financial infeasibility, dramatically changing age demographics, and the cultural mediocrity that they instill. Foreign wars, which necessitate higher taxes and thus enable the centralization of power, are becoming less and less popular, both for financial and moral reasons. All forms of collectivism are showing themselves to be unsustainable as a matter of empirical fact, rather than subjective value judgment. The popularity of Ron Paul, and a general decline of trust in the government and other modern institutions, especially among the youth, also evidence the decline of collectivism.

The Fragmented Nature of Libertarianism

While there are universal tendencies shared by modern libertarians, libertarianism as a political movement and ideal has not yet gained the coherence necessary to appropriately use it as a specific, functional label. The tagline of the Libertarian Party is “Smaller government, Lower Taxes, More Freedom,” which is about as universal as the movement gets. However, Lew Rockwell — one of the most popular and widely read libertarian websites, boasts the tagline “Anti-State, Anti-War, Pro-Market,” which is clearly more ideological, more concentrated, and therefore more divisive. While Ayn Rand preached the “virtue of selfishness,” Leo Tolstoy advocated self-transcendence and Christian service. And in contrast to Rand and Tolstoy, whose messages center on personal morals and values, Ludwig von Mises, Murray Rothbard, Henry Hazlitt, and others generally avoid such concerns and focus primarily on the economic aspect of freedom.

Attempting to define libertarianism appears to be an irony and even a contradiction, since at its core libertarianism viscerally rejects any label or identification that would even hint at forced or inauthentic uniformity. As a response to collectivism — or sameness — libertarianism celebrates diversity and independent thought. However, since it appears to be the default heir to the decaying throne of American politics and culture, defining it is one of the most vital steps to Read more