Conservatives and constitutionalism

Conservatives love to say we have to get back to the Constitution and all our problems will be solved. The Constitution is instead the cause of most of our problems.

Consider, if you will, the Dred Scott decision. The North didn’t want slavery there or expanded to the West but didn’t really care that it continued in the South. The problem with slaves is that they are a naturally increasing asset- being living creatures they produce offspring, which is a great way of increasing your wealth, but the resulting persons must be put to work somehow, somewhere- you can establish new plantations and have them work there, or you can sell them to an entrepreneurial planter who will establish a new plantation and put them to work.

The land devoted to cultivation under slavery must increase with the slave population. A slave you can’t work still must be fed and will quickly destroy your profits.

The South then wanted to open Western lands to slave cultivation. The Northerners wanted to expand their own economic system and culture into this area, based on owner family farming.

The long, ugly, and angry story of all this eventually came to a legal and constitutional end. With the Civil War, you say? No, not at all. The Dred Scott decision made it a final decision, of the unappealable law of the land, that slavery would be established in the Western territories.

Slavery is, you see, “constitutional.” The concept of the Supreme Court as the final and unquestionable authority on the law of the land had been established for over 50 years, by of course John Marshall in Marbury vs. Madison.

I looked up John Marshall and was a bit surprised, although I should not have been, to find he was very much the product of English feudalism. His father, and he after him, were clients of Lord Fairfax, who functioned as an English lord in the Virginia colony. John Marshall is a great hero of liberals; he and his enthronement of judicial review are one of the great stories of liberalism taught in American schools.

The North was then placed in a very difficult position. It was widely expected- not unreasonably- that Roger Taney would soon declare slavery to be constitutional in every state. Even its expansion in the West would destroy the dream of New England, the Midwest, and the old Northwest- a nation of freeholders. Such a nation didn’t exist anywhere at that time.

Stephen Douglas and the northern Democrats tried to downplay this- they said slavery couldn’t be successfully established against the will of the people if the people refused to establish or enforce laws for its maintenance. The alternative was of course worse, and what was going on in Kansas- Southern vigilantes coming in to force slavery on the population.

The Civil War was, then, as the Southerners of the time correctly perceived, a revolt against and for purposes of overthrowing the Constitution. The love affair that liberals have with the Constitution, judicial review and an activist federal judiciary only dates to about the 40’s, by which time they had taken over the academic culture and thus the judicial culture.

The bottom line is the Constitution means, and says, whatever the people who run things want it to mean and say. The idea that we don’t currently live under a Constitutional regime and if judges would only apply the Constitution we would be free is outdated. Was it true at some time in the past? Not really. Roger Taney was no socialist- he was one of the worst human beings ever to live, and certainly the worst who was not a communist, but he was a very respected legal scholar and a traditional man of property. John Marshall might be thought of as a Roman patrician- a man who believed in the law, as long as it kept the people in power in power.


About thrasymachus33308

I like fast cars, fast women and southern-fried rock. I have an ongoing beef with George Orwell. I take my name from a character in Plato's "Republic" who was exasperated with the kind of turgid BS that passed for deep thought and political discourse in that time and place, just as I am today. The character, whose name means "fierce fighter" was based on a real person but nobody knows for sure what his actual political beliefs were. I take my pseudonym from a character in an Adam Sandler song who was a obnoxious jerk who pissed off everybody.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to Conservatives and constitutionalism

  1. apollonian says:

    Thrasymachus Hits (Obliquely) Upon Key Cultural Theme: Subjectivism Vs. Objectivity(Apollonian, 12 Jun 10)Thrasymachus: ur exposition leaves much to be desired–but it DOES SUCCEED nonetheless in bringing-up key issue/theme–that btwn objective vs. subjective view of reality (and hence, US Constitution). In the first place u provide NO citations for ur tendentious assertions.But I'd agree w. u, nonetheless, on ur thesis Civil War grossly overthrew US Const.–esp. the 10th amendment which states so succinctly: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."Obviously, secession was not prohibited to the states. And obviously the states are the very agencies of the people for the understanding and administration of said Const.And black slavery was simply an institution of the time, no less than any other institution, there being no "good-evil" anymore than there's perfectly "free" human will.Thus Civil War overthrew Const. and made white people (esp. in South) gross slaves–now to be enforced by the blacks–all done in the name of moralism-Pharisaism–it was simply an absolutely incredible catastrophe, though few understood it at the time. Only nowadays do we see the full horror, the leviathan "world gov." now determined to literally de-populate the planet of "useless eaters."Most interesting of ur statements is, "The bottom line is the Constitution means, and says, whatever the people who run things want it to mean and say."Though I vehemently disagree w. u, I do follow what u say regarding esp. the stupidity of people who allow contracts to which they're party to being usurped so miserably, as during Civil War. Little did the Southern patriots realize what they were getting into, the Northerners evermore determined to commit genocide against their own folk–in the name of moralism-Pharisaism. Such is the power of HUBRIS in "Decline of the West," by Oswald Spengler, truly.[————see below for part two to above entry——–A.]

  2. apollonian says:

    [———-here's part two to above entry——–A.]* * * * * What we need now is something similarly epochal for the counter-revolution to that moralism-Pharisaist madness which took hold of USA–as it did in entire West, following J.J. Rousseau, Kant, and Benthamite Utilitarianism–esp. then in the north, so decisively during Civil War.But people have to first make an effort to understand–to seeing, for thematic example, how Jews and their accomplices now have so totally triumphed, both in USA and Israel.And it's this Jew-issue u can't and won't attempt to resolve, Thrasymachus, which so well characterizes the general MALAISE which has similarly taken hold of so many others too within this horrible, putrid, so-called "culture," now getting ready to implode decisively, great mile-stone approaching when US Dollar collapses as world "reserve" currency.And tragedy for people is u, for example, haven't got even the beginning of a clue for useful analysis, Thrasymachus, though u are clever enough to bring up this drivel of urs regarding US Const.–I must commend u, at least for ur candidness, smug and glib as it is.My own observation then is Spenglerian "Decline of the West" simply creates a great stock of weaklings and inferiors who believe so obsessively in this mystic, subjectivistic moralism-Pharisaism, and they now will consume themselves in-fighting at behest of Jews and a maybe a few gentile accomplices.The few Christian heroes must simply work accordingly as they strive to survive the great maelstrom of Orwellian "perpetual war for perp. peace" which must now ensue.CONCLUSION: Weak-link then, and key for the opposition, for this otherwise overwhelming Jew-led and -dominated hegemony of ZOG-Mammon empire-of-lies is "Judeo-Christian" (JC–see and for expo/ref.) faction which intimidates and dazzles the people. Honest elections and death to the Fed. Apollonian

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s