Conservative Equivalent To Constitutional?

Posted: August 29, 2009 in Category - A Commentary From Bo, Conservative Equivalent To Constitutional?

By Bo Perrin

Hello all. You will notice that this article is tied to the post, Remove All Politicians? If you have not read that post I encourage you to do so. I  stand by the article’s premise which is simply the following: a Constitutionally worthy politician ought to receive our support not our condemnation.  In other words we should not punish those who are truly Constitutionally worthy to hold their office because of the abuse of others.

But that post begs the question, What does it mean to be Constitutionally worthy? I believe that the most important mistake that many today in the Patriot movement make is to equate the phrase Conservative with Constitutional and use the two as if they are equivalent.  The extent of the term Conservative is not limited to Republicans, Democrats or even Statists. To be Conservative simply means that you desire the status-quo to remain the status-quo.  The American Heritage Dictionary online defines the term as a person “Favoring traditional views and values; tending to oppose change. . . Moderate; cautious: a conservative estimate. . .  Of or relating to the political philosophy of conservatism. Belonging to a conservative party, group, or movement.”  It is interesting how many dictionaries and websites define Conservative by the beliefs a person holds rather than descriptively.  The American Heritage’s definition can refer to a Communist or a Fascist.  Hitler was a radical when he was fighting for political power because he wanted a change in the status-quo.  When Hitler gain power he wanted to keep the new status-quo as the status-quo.  He was now a conservative.  Stalin was never really a radical because he grew up under the Marx-Leninist system we have fondly come to know as Communism and he clearly wanted the status-quo to remain the status-quo.  Stalin was a conservative.  Do you see the point, my friend? Being a Conservative has less to do with your beliefs per se and more with whether you want or do not want the status-quo to remain the status-quo.  Hitler’s generals did not believe in Republican principles nor were they trying to help the Allies when they tried unsuccessfully to kill Hitler. Nevertheless, they were radicals because they wanted a change in the status-quo (leadership) but were conservative because they did not want a change in the national status-quo (Germany’s power).  President Obama was a radical when running for the Presidency because he wanted the status-quo to change.  Now that he is in power he is trying to make the changes he desires.  He is in the transition of going from radical to conservative. But when those changes are in place, if they get into place, he will want to maintain them.  The status-quo has changed to a status-quo which he wants to maintain and so he will now, by definition, be a Conservative.  Lets face it.  If President Obama gets his way then those in the Patriot movement will become the radicals because we want Obama’s status-quo to change to the Framers’ status-quo.  So, politically Conservative and Radical are very fluid terms which depend totally upon your stance concerning the status-quo.

What has this to do with being Constitutional? Conservapedia defines a Conservative as a person who believes in limited Government, personal responsibility and moral values.  Well, you might ask, are these not the heart of the Constitution? The phrase limited government is ambiguous and does not in and of itself necessarily describe a Constitutional idea. President Obama wants to grow the government to about 250,000 employees. A Republican might state in response that the government is now too big and he might demand that the number of employees be reduced.  In response the populace might refer to the Republican as a person who believes in limited government.

But is this limited government a Constitutionally limited government?

Personal responsibility is also ambiguous.  Even a Statist believes in personal responsibility to at least make the government become what he believes it ought to be.  Even after the government has become what he wants it to be he still believes in the personal responsibility to maintain the government as it has become.  Granted there are some major differences between definitions of personal responsibility nevertheless, personal responsibility is not limited to a “conservative.”

But are personal responsibilities Constitutionally personal responsibilities merely because they are personal responsibilities of a conservative?

In addition, no human being is amoral.  I realize we love to remark how this or that person has no moral values.  This is simple wrong especially if you believe in the “laws of nature and God” that Jefferson and committee put into the Declaration of Independence.  A moral is a merely a standard by which a person lives life.  If a person believes he must love God, love his neighbor and do unto others as he would have them to unto himself then he is a moral person.  If a person believes he ought to be rude to another, steal from another or look out only for himself then he is a moral person.  I am not trying to anger anyone when I say this but Mother Teresa and Adolf Hitler both lived moral lives.  So, every person is moral and many will be immoral because they follow the wrong ethical standard but no person is amoral. The question is not whether a person is moral or not for everyone is.  The question is whether the moral standard a person follows is the correct standard.  The answer to this question is not a philosophical question per se because philosophy qua philosophy is incapable of correctly answering the question because they limit their scope or inquiry by rejecting the Bible.

But are moral values Constitutionally moral values merely because they are moral values of a conservative?

My point here is that moral values are not limited to Conservatives. So, the answer to each question is, emphatically, NO!  Because of space I am only going to examine the Constitutional idea of a limited government and provide a couple of examples.  But the fact is that what is said about limited government can also be said about personal responsibilities and moral values.   So, what is a Constitutionally limited government? Well, lets do what most people, especially Statists, will not and ask the Constitution.   The Constitution defines limited Federal government in the following ways.

1) The Fed is limited by what is enumerated in the Constitution or delegated to it by the States (Article 1).  This means the Presidency has only six areas of Constitutional responsibility, the Congress has only twenty areas of Constitutional responsibility and the Supreme Court is Constitutionally limited to hearing only eleven kinds of cases. Each of these has been illegally violated either by Supreme Court opinions or legislation, Constitutional amendments, or by Presidential decree.  In a very real sense the number of people employed by the Feds has little to do with a question about the limited role government ought to play in our lives.  The question of numbers is a question about size not Constitutional limitedness. Since the government has enlarged itself by taking on more than it is Constitutionally permitted then the government is no longer Constitutionally limited.

2) All legislation is to be enacted ONLY by the Congress which is ONLY the House and Senate.  Yet, the Supreme Court makes legislation when it arrogantly redefines the legislation enacted.  The Supreme Court is not a law making body because it is unelected and unresponsive to We The People.   The President makes legislation by Executive decrees.  Executive decrees are fine for those in the Executive branch and military for that is the President’s domain. But the American people are not in that domain and if his decrees are enacted and enforced as legislation on We The People they are unconstitutional.   The Executive branch is not a law making body. Thankfully, the President is responsive to the people by vote.  The EPA and the Department of Education are not elected entities and therefore, they are unresponsive to We The People.  Yet, these bodies have been delegated the power to enact legislation by the Congress and President. Yet, where in the original text of the Constitution does the Constitution give Congress or the President the authority to delegate legislative making powers which are specially reserved for the Congress alone? In addition, where did the States ever delegated such authority to the Feds? The fact is the States could not delegate this because of the enumerated limitations of the Constitution and they do not have the Constitutional authority.

Of course you, the reader, might have an issue that you might want to put in place of the ones I have listed and feel free to do so.  The point, my point, of this article, as extensive as it may be, is that the phrase Conservative is not necessarily equivalent to the phrase Constitutional.  There are many conservatives on both sides of the aisle who accept the status-quo as herein described in points 1 and 2. Yet, points 1 and 2 are unconstitutional as is the Supreme Court rulings which allowed politicians this power grab.

What does this mean? First, a conservative is not necessarily constitutionally correct although he or she can be.  A Conservative can be unconstitutional. Second, being Constitutionally correct does necessarily mean that one is a conservative although he or she may be.  Due to the status-quo at a particular moment in time a person who is Constitutionally correct might be either a conservative or radical.  If the government is following the Constitution as described within the Constitution then a Constitutionalist is a conservative because he or she wants to maintain the status-quo.  But if the Constitution is being attacked then the Constitutionalist will demand that the status-quo must change and so he or she is now a radical.  Princess Pelosi once stated that Patriots are radicals. She is right. The Constitution has been and is being attacked and what Patriots demand is movement toward Constitutional authority and away from Ruler’s law!   We want a change in the status-quo as it is at the moment and by definition, this makes us the radicals.

So, the 2012 dilemma is simple.  Who do you want in office? A Conservative or Constitutionalist? I would opt for a Constitutionalist, radical or conservative, every time.

Advertisements
Comments
  1. johnnybturnbull says:

    Enjoyed!

    Check out mine if you have a chance

    http://damnwrite.org/2010/07/03/his-story-robert-byrd-droppings/

  2. Greetings! I had a hard time hunting for this topic, I am using it for my project, please don’t hesitate to write fresh interesting topic. Looking for your future posts. Thanks, Good Luck!

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s