Feb 11, 2012 AD
1. Federal laws legalizing pornography
2. Federal laws legalizing alcohol
3. Federal laws legalizing drugs
4. Federal laws legalizing homosexuality
5. Federal laws legalizing abortion
1. Federal laws prohibiting pornography
2. Federal laws prohibiting alcohol
3. Federal laws prohibiting drugs
4. Federal laws prohibiting homosexuality
5. Federal laws prohibiting abortion
The problems is that nowhere in the Constitution is there authority to either legalize or prohibit any of these 5 causes.
Nevertheless, both Social-Liberals, as well as Social-Conservatives, agree on one point: It is OK to violate Constitutional law - for your cause.
Doesn't matter if you are right or wrong -- the Constitution says this is not the time or the place for this.
Our Founders understood the old problem of democracy where two wolves and one sheep get together to decide what to eat. Who are the wolves and who are the sheep, depends upon where you stand politically and if you are the majority or the minority.
If you are the 51%, you eat well. If you are 49%, you get eaten.
There is no doubt that the social-conservative finds himself reacting as a counterbalance to the always-progressing social-liberals enacting one federal law after another.
He insists that his viewpoint is for a good cause - to hold back or reverse the evils of the social-liberal upon the land.
How is that working? -- Social-Conservatives are getting eaten alive by the social-liberal wolves.
"Social" is best when it is "voluntary"
Here is the great irony for all concerned: the word “social” means “voluntary.”
The historic position of American conservative political theory is this: "The state is not society".
The historic position of the social-liberal is this: "The state best represents society".
We hear of “Social Justice”, which is really code for “Welfare State.”
We hear of the "Social Gospel", which is really code for “Welfare State.”
Liberals say “Social”, but they really mean “State.”
In practice, social-conservatives are like social-liberals. Officially, they defend free association, but when push comes to shove, they join with liberals to vote in favor of an expanded federal government. When it comes to assessing the power of the state, both groups say “more.”
This is the representative case. Would a social-conservative Congressman vote for a law restricting pornography? After all, it crosses borders.
The question that I raise today is this: “How can you regulate pornography and leave the Internet free?”
The pornographic materials on the Web are close to unlimited. It costs nothing to upload it. It costs nothing to download it. This is driving the pornographic movie industry out of business. As the aficionados say, “Smut yearns to be free.” How can the government stop the spread of essentially free digits? At what cost? I don’t mean financial cost. I mean cost of lost liberty.
Censorship was always based on control over the physical properties of the media. It took printing presses. It took paper and ink. It took distribution channels. It took retail outlets. The technique: Follow the money. But when there is no paper, no ink, no printing press, and the distribution channels are outside of the jurisdiction of any specific national government, what is the technology of censorship? Ask Hosni Mubarak.
The cost of prohibiting something that is highly demanded and is free to the customer approaches infinity. So, how do we stop the spread of pornography? By self-government.
Nationally, we have been down this road. Prohibition gave the criminal syndicates the money they needed to finance their entry into the other areas of sin. It made the crime syndicates what they are today.
What stops the spread of alcohol? Self-government. There are local laws against alcohol. There are dry counties. I used to live in one in Texas. At the edge of the county’s borders on all sides were liquor stores. But the voters remained committed to prohibition.
What should Congress do about wet counties? Nothing. What should Congress do about dry counties? Nothing.
What applies to alcohol applies to drugs — all drugs. The analytical principles are the same. So are the legal principles.
What should the federal government do to stop the spread of hallucinatory drugs? Shut down the Department of Education. The biggest drug emporium in any zip code is the public high school.
What does the Constitution have to say about sexual behavior? Nothing. About marriage? Nothing.
My recommendation is simple: get rid of the graduated income tax. That would end tax discrimination for or against marriage.
Here, the federal government has a position: there can be no laws against abortion. That was a Supreme Court decision.
What is the Constitutional way to deal with this? Simple: have a 50% plus one vote in each branch of Congress to remove the issue of abortion from the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.
In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the Supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make (Art. III, Sec. 2).
The President has no say in this. Neither does the Supreme Court. Anyone who wants to know if this is the correct view of this section should research Ex Parte McCardle.
-- Gary North,
A Constitutional Agenda for Social Conservatives
Again, the word “social” means “voluntary”.
The State is not voluntary, it is force.
The State is not society, but entirely outside of society.
- Society is the wife we are attracted to
- Society is the the children we bring into the world,
- Society is the neighborhoods with their schools we check out, buy into and improve with projects.
- Society is the Churches we join,
- Society is the PTA we volunteer for
- Society is the professional associations we participate in.
- Society is the coworkers we interview for and get hired to be with.
- Society is the book clubs and boy scouts we sign up for.
Society is "freedom of association" and it is formally recognized by the State in our Constitution as a right.
Government is to protect the society we create for ourselves -- not regulate it, not reshape it, not prohibit it, not encourage it the way government would most like it to be.
We are society and we are supposed to have freedom and liberty.
Social-conservatives need to decide how they will act:
A) endless head-banging against social-liberals
B) just follow the Constitution.
If they go with the Constitution, a great way to drain the swamp is to repeal the 17th Amendment so that the States are once again sitting at the national kitchen table discussing our future as a nation.
The States are much closer to our personal society, and before the 17th Amendment threw the States out of the U.S. Senate, the States have traditionally been counted on to jealously guard their power by keeping the federal government to a bare bones minimum in our lives and constrained from interfering with our personal society within their State.
Gary North of Godfathers Politics
A Constitutional Agenda for Social Conservatives
Article located at: