It is admitted by all except the liberal media and left-wing ideologues jockeying for political and partisan advantage, neither the tenor nor the content of our public discourse had any bearing upon the tragedy in Tucson. Nevertheless there have been calls for a return to civility in our speech. I heartily second that motion, believing as I do that civility should always be the hallmark of discussion among ladies and gentleman. However, that is not the topic of this discourse.
I seek to call my fellow Americans not to a more civil debate but to The Great Civil Debate. This is the debate we need if we’re to move beyond the gridlock of right versus left, the vitriol of Democrat versus Republican, and the hysteria of a coming conservative authoritarianism or a looming socialist one. The debate I’m calling for is not an innovation in American History. Instead it’s a re-play of a previous event and the sequel to our preliminary event: the debate over the ratification of the Constitution. What we need now is a debate over the relevance of the Constitution with regard to the actions of the Federal Government.
From the day the Constitution was signed, September 17, 1787 to the day it was ratified June 21, 1788, this country rang with the impassioned speeches and stirring essays of both the opponents and the proponents of this our founding document. Today is the day and now is the time for the debate to once again stir the hearts of the nation, will we have a limited government, personal liberty and free enterprise or are we going to have something else? There’s no greater admirer of the United States Constitution then the author of this article. None can be found who gives more veneration to the Framers or who pays more attention to its words.
However, after 222 years there’s no one more convinced that we’ve reached an historical impasse. The Constitution is still in force. It has been amended twenty seven times, but it has not been supplanted. Yet, it’s all but ignored by the Federal Government. Our continually expanding federal bureaucracy tips its hat to the commerce clause or uses the elastic necessary and proper clause as a political fig leaf to do whatever they want. This being the current situation this article is in fact an intervention. It’s well known that until a problem is recognized there’s no hope for a solution. Therefore, since every other commentator I’m aware of dances around the 800 pound gorilla in the middle of the room, I’ll acknowledge the obvious and take the afore-mentioned primate as my dancing partner and say what must be said: the Constitution has failed.
This is not to say that it is a flawed document, a vehicle for ulterior motives, or that it has always been a failure. This is not to say that I’m offering or advocating for a replacement. As I mentioned earlier, there is no greater admirer of the United States Constitution then the author of this article. What I do mean to say is that this great document which birthed and sustained a limited government for more than two hundred years has now become effectively irrelevant.
The proof for this sad statement can be seen in the unguarded rhetoric of the movers and shakers of our now unlimited government. When asked where in the Constitution a warrant for mandated health care could be found one congressman answers, “I don’t worry about the Constitution.” Another congressman says, “There’s nothing in the Constitution that says that the federal government has anything to do with most of the stuff we do. It means what we say it means.” When asked a question about the constitutionality of health care legislation former Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi’s response is, “Are you serious?”
And we have a President who writes that the Constitution is not “…static but rather a living document, and must be read in the context of an ever-changing world.” No wonder a liberal pundit finds it odd that a candidate for Congress would promise to consider the constitutionality of legislation saying, “that certainly isn’t the job of Congress. They should just pass whatever they want and let the courts worry about it later.” These examples are joined by volumes of others, which show that not only is the Constitution irrelevant to these leaders it has become so accepted as irrelevant that they no longer even have to pay lip service to the integrity of the document they’ve sworn to uphold and defend.
We need a reset button. We need to return to limited government. But how do we get there from here? The Tenth Amendment which says, “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” has been emasculated through court rulings. The legal system has moved from original intent to precedent. From what the words mean to what can we say the words mean. This tsunami of change is led by the Progressives who believe that we need to evolve past the ideas and procedures devised and set down by the Framers and create a New America. A transformed America founded not on the equality of opportunity but on the equality of outcome. These big government leaders in both parties seek not mere equal justice for all but social justice, not free enterprise but central planning.
This intervention sadly begins with the assessment based upon the current reality that the Constitution has failed. However, it ends on a note of hope. We’re the descendants of the Pioneers, the offspring of the Framers, and we can do this. We can find a way within the legal framework of the Constitution itself to press that reset button. We can solve this problem, because we’re Americans and we’re a can-do, get-it-done people. But if we refuse to admit there’s a problem we’ll be doomed to suffer silently in the shadows as our beloved city on the hill becomes a lost dream in the twilight of freedom. Instead let’s start The Great Civil Debate. How can we restore limited government, ensure liberty and revitalize free enterprise? How can we get there from here? Keep the faith. Keep the peace. We shall overcome.
Dr. Owens teaches History, Political Science, and Religion for Southside Virginia Community College. He is the author of the History of the Future @ http://drrobertowens.com View the trailer for Dr. Owens’ latest book @ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ypkoS0gGn8 © 2011 Robert R. Owens dr.owens@comcast.net Follow Dr. Robert Owens on Facebook.
Robert R. Owens
Dr. Robert Owens currently teaches History, Political Science, Religion, and Leadership for Southside Virginia Community College and History for the American Public University. He is the author of numerous books including; The Constitution Failed, The Azusa Street Revival and America Won the Vietnam War! He also writes a weekly opinion column which appears in numerous print and online sources archived at www.drrobertowens.com . He is married to Dr. Rosalie Owens. They have one son and two grandchildren.
Follow Me:
The author says “We need to return to limited government.” How limited? That, it seems to me, is where the heart (and heat) of the matter lies – the rest is pretty much smoke. As to “where in the Concstitution a warrant for mandated health care could be found,” it could just as well be asked where in the Constitution could be found a prohibition of mandated health care? If this is a matter for the Tenth Amendment cited by the author that such “powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution….are reserved to the States,” then let the states have their say, as is happening (last I heard, the score in the four states courts which have ruled is 2 to 2). If, as is likely, it winds up being ultimately decided by the Supreme Court, I don’t have a problem with whatever the final decision. Does the author?
Report this comment
If you support debate then why is it you almost never answer the comments to your posts? I put it to you that for all intents and purposes you have no interest in debate, rather only in creating another flowery rant supporting your own personal interpretation of the constitution.
Further, I say that the great debate is civil and constantly ongoing.
Report this comment
State sovereignty is clearly an issue worth evaluating. A strange and perplexing dichotomy arises when the Federal government maintains jurisdiction and the “right” to intercede in state’s business and legislation, when the constitution clearly returns the right and priviledge to decide upon matters not explicitly outlined in the constitution back to the state. The assumption is that each state may have differing needs and desires often dependant upon their geography, location and population. The rise of federal dominion began sometime before the Civil War, when the North ( Abe Lincoln) espoused a predominately republican platform, and the south, moreso democratic. Since those times, the party lines have reversed along with the connotation of liberalism and conservatist political position. Essentially, the IRS, federal policing bureaus and the national treasury are all of dubious origin and arguably seen as unconstitutional by many Americans. The difficulty lies in the fact that the so-called “Great Debate” tends to defer attention away from allocated state sovereignty toward the widely accepted premise that the federal government holds the power to decide issues that are not included in the constitution.
Report this comment
Well said Nick!
“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.”
At the time James Madison said:
“…the Constitution, that the powers not therein delegated should be reserved to the several States… but there can be no harm in making such a declaration, if gentlemen will allow that the fact is as stated.”
There are too many who wish to twist and distort the words and their meanings and intent.
Report this comment