The Irrationality of the Left: Duke Responds to Reader on Constitution

By Selwyn Duke

Since an understanding of the Constitution is so rare nowadays, I've decided to respond to a poster who advocates the reckless and unlawful "living document" philosophy.  I address his points at length, and I think you may find elements of the response useful in framing your arguments when defending the Constitution.

Robert Berger wrote:

The constitution is rather similar to the Bible in that any American citizen can use it as an excuse to advocate banning this or that, or making certain things mandatory. But it says absolutely nothing about what personal conduct is permissable or not, or what individual things should be legal or legal. Some homophobic bigots have used it as an excusr to take away rights from gay people and even persecute them, even though it says absolutely nothing about the sexual conduct of private citizens. Others have claimed that there is supposedly no right to privacy in the constitution, and that therefore the government should have the right to pry into the bedrooms of Americans, and others have claimed that it mandates making abortion illegal, even though abortion was a non-issue at the time of the founding fathers, and that if any of them had even mentioned abortion at a meeting ,let alone making it illegal, the others would have thought he was out of his mind !

No, the constitution is NOT an absolutely fixed thing. It is open to differing views of interpetation . No one, not even the members of the supreme court has a monopoly on interpeting it.

And next Mr. Berger opined:

I'm not on any kind of medication that would affect my mind in any way, and am perfectly sane and rational. What I said was perfectly reasonable.

We can't all just use the constitution as en excuse to justify our own prejudices,as so many conservatives want to today , disingenuously claiming that they know exactly what the constitution means and requires.  

To talk about "original intent" is ridiculous. America and the whole world are so vastly different from the late 19th century that there's absolutely no way to govern this country as it was at that time. Econonomic and social conditions are so vastly more complex from the past that wondering what the founding fathers supposedly intended is absolutely futile. We have to face the realities of this day in a pragmatic way or we are lost as a nation.

Selwyn Duke responds:

Dear Mr. Berger:

You just might have set a record with your two posts.  You have managed to write a handful of paragraphs in which virtually every sentence contains either a falsehood or a fallacy.  And although I'm probably wasting my e-breath with you, others may benefit from hearing the Truth.  So let's take your points one at a time.

"We can't all just use the constitution as en excuse to justify our own prejudices,as so many conservatives want to today , disingenuously claiming that they know exactly what the constitution means and requires."

You have it exactly backwards.  It is leftists who interpret the Constitution so as to suit their own agenda; thus, they are the ones who interpret it in a way that justifies their own prejudice.  And while this shouldn't require further elaboration, I'll illustrate the point.

Let's hark back to the golf analogy I often use.  Who is interpreting the rules of golf to justify his prejudice?  Is it the person who says, "I'm going to abide by the rules whether I like them or not" or the one who says, "Let's see, I don't like certain rules, so I'm going to put my own spin on them and justify it by calling it 'pragmatism'"?  The fact is — and it is a fact, not opinion — that people such as me say the former; we accept the Constitution's dictates whether we like them or not.  This doesn't mean that I wouldn't change certain things about the document if I could, but I'm steadfast in maintaining that it must changed, not twisted.  In other words, it must be amended, which is the only way to alter the Constitution, not misinterpreted.  Now, with this in mind, let's examine what "conservatives" actually say, as opposed to your misconceptions about their beliefs.

"The constitution is rather similar to the Bible in that any American citizen can use it as an excuse to advocate banning this or that, or making certain things mandatory. But it says absolutely nothing about what personal conduct is permissable or not, or what individual things should be legal or legal."

Precisely.  And now you're halfway to an understanding of the issue.  What does it mean when the Constitution is silent on a matter, as it is on personal matters (and most things; it's a short document)?  It means exactly what conservatives advocate, which is that those matters are then up to the states to decide.  For example, I despise socialized medicine.  But since the Constitution is silent on the matter, if the states want to institute such a thing, that it their legal right.  Understanding this, let's examine the falsehoods you expressed.

"Some homophobic bigots have used it as an excusr to take away rights from gay people and even persecute them, even though it says absolutely nothing about the sexual conduct of private citizens."

This is untrue.  Conservatives do not say the Constitution prohibits faux marriage or sodomy; they simply say, correctly, that since "it says absolutely nothing about the sexual conduct of private citizens," such decisions are the domain of the states.  It is the left that is trying to use constitutions (the national as well as states ones) as an excuse to force faux marriage upon us despite the fact that majorities in all states are opposed to recognizing them legally.

"Others have claimed that there is supposedly no right to privacy in the constitution, and that therefore the government should have the right to pry into the bedrooms of Americans . . . ."

You're referring to the Fourth Amendment, which prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures.  Note that the language implies that there are such things as reasonable searches and seizures. 

Moreover, the second part of your statement is a falsehood; conservatives don't say that the government should have a right to "pry into bedrooms" (without a warrant) as that would constitute an unreasonable search.  They simply say that states have a right — which again, they do under the Constitution — to outlaw acts such as sodomy and bestiality.  Whether or not they should do so and how they would go about enforcing such law is a different matter.  It's much like drug use.  Most people use illegal drugs in private homes, but no one ever says that this fact alone justifies wiping drug laws off the books.  In point of fact, most illegal acts, from murder to battery to child molestation, can be perpetrated in private homes.  Yet the government still has a right to criminalize those acts.   

"and others have claimed that it mandates making abortion illegal . . . ."

This is a falsehood.  What conservatives say is that Roe v. Wade is badly settled law (which Ruth Bader Ginsburg has said herself).  They furthermore say that it should be overturned, which would have a significant effect, but the criminalizing of abortion would not be part of it.  Did you know that?  I don't think you did.  All that would happen is that the issue would then be decided by the states, which is what conservatives have been lobbying for.  Also note that this was how the matter was determined for most all our nation's history.

"abortion was a non-issue at the time of the founding fathers, and that if any of them had even mentioned abortion at a meeting ,let alone making it illegal, the others would have thought he was out of his mind !"

This is because it was taken for granted that it was wrong (how many abortions do you think they had in colonial America?).  This is much as when people point out that Jesus said nothing about homosexuality.  The fact is that He didn't have to; everyone at the time understood that the behavior was wrong and this was enshrined in Judaic law.

"No, the constitution is NOT an absolutely fixed thing. It is open to differing views of interpetation . No one, not even the members of the supreme court has a monopoly on interpeting it."

Illogical statement.  A document cannot change unless we change it, so it is in fact a fixed thing.  And the only way we can change it is through the Amendment Process. 

As for differing views, how about if I interpret it to mean that I can rob you?  When you imply that there is no correct interpretation, that is the road you go down.  It either means something, or it doesn't.  If the latter, why even have a Constitution?  Just let the judges rule in a way they think is just.

As for the High Court, unfortunately, we have given it a monopoly on interpreting the Constitution.  And, because of people such as you, it can interpret the document as it sees fit and impose its own prejudices on the rest of us.  This means that, because of people such as you, the Court is no longer constrained by anything but is acting as an oligarchy.  Thus, if you want to know who is responsible for the Kelo decision, look in the mirror.

"To talk about "original intent" is ridiculous. America and the whole world are so vastly different from the late 19th century that there's absolutely no way to govern this country as it was at that time. Econonomic and social conditions are so vastly more complex from the past that wondering what the founding fathers supposedly intended is absolutely futile."

Let's apply this to another set of rules and see if it makes sense.  What if a golfer said, "Don't tell me I have to follow the rules of golf.  It's ridiculous to talk about what the original rule makers intended because the world and golf — with equipment changes and what not — are so much different.  We have to be pragmatic"?  Unless you're willing to be consistent about your irrationality, you'd tell him to get an education.  You'd say that if the rules are lacking, it is up to the ruling body, responding to the will of the players, to alter them — it's not up to him.

"We have to face the realities of this day in a pragmatic way or we are lost as a nation."

Who is "we," Mr. Berger?  Is it just you and those who think like you?  I know you don't say that.  Well, then who is it?  It is the people, correct?  OK, then how do the people alter the Constitution so as to have it reflect the realities of the times, should they deem this necessary?

Answer: the Amendment Process.

This is the way the people, through their elected representatives, can put into effect what they believe is "pragmatic."  What you are proposing is very different.  You want to give unelected judges the right to make those determinations for the people.  That's not democracy, but oligarchy.

As an example, the people have spoken clearly and said that, at this juncture, they don't want faux marriage.  So I ask you, why do you not accept what "we," the majority, has decided?  The Constitution doesn't say faux marriage must be legally recognized — as you said, it is silent on such matters — so your only answer would have to be that we can interpret it to suit the times.  But if the people don't determine the times, who does?  Judges?  If the "we" doing the interpreting isn't the people, who is it?  Judges?  Try to answer the last five questions (for yourself) honestly, and you'll start to understand the issue. 

"I'm not on any kind of medication that would affect my mind in any way, and am perfectly sane and rational. What I said was perfectly reasonable."

The first assertion may very well be true, but the last two certainly are not, as I have illustrated for you.  But you should understand why some here are suggesting that you're a drug user.  You are exhibiting something ex-KGB agent and Soviet defector Yuri Bezmenov spoke of when he talked about the effects of subversion.  That is, you are detached from reason.  You seem incapable of following one point logically to the next, assessing facts and grasping analogies.  Detached from Truth, you use the only yardstick you have left for making decisions: emotion.  This is why I don't expect you to see the light. 

Hell is a place where there is no reason.

                  © 2009 Selwyn Duke — All Rights Reserved 

Comments

[Shaun]

Great article Selwyn,

I might also add that the Constitution does not permit the Federal Government to force citizens to buy goods or services from private companies but, it looks like this will happen after the vote coming up tomorrow. Constitutionality should be taught mandatorily in our schools and discussed between teachers and students.

Shaun

[Robert Berger]

The federal government has tried to force
people to do many things, or to deny them the legal right to do other things.
Where in the constitution does it say that US citizens may not drink alcoholic beverages ? Yet prohibition was the law of the land for some years.
The founding fathers, most of whom enjoyed imbibing, would never have approved of this.
And firthermore, I'm neither irrational, or of the left. I'm a non-conservative.
I'm no left-winger. Ironically, left-wingers think I'm too CONSERVATIVE for them.
And Selwyn, people like you are not conservatives. You're reactionaries.
You want to turn back the clock on all the social and economic progress America has made in the last several decades, in the
delusional attempt to return "Freedom", "morality", "family values", "traditional values", "religious freedom", and "decency" to this country.
But these are nothing but buzz words to disguise you true agenda, which would be poisonous to America if you got your way.

[John]

Berger, tanks for proving Duke's point. Where in the constitution does it say you can't drink alcoholic beverages? The nation created an AMENDMENT saying you couldn't! That's what Duke was talking about. It then created another amendment repealing prohibition. It was a mistake. But it was instituted legally-not through judicial fiat.

You don't even know enough to argue your own incorrect position. Please educate yourself before commenting again.

[W. Tieff]

You just keep getting it wrong, don't you Robert?

Prohibition was legally enforced after the Constitution was Amended by a ratification process involving all 47 or so individual States (at the time), whose leadership voted for their constituents' wishes. There was quite a lot of anti-liquor sentiment, fueled early on by women's groups (women's sufferage was gaining popularity) led by spikey, media-savvy characters such as Molly Hatchet. The "times" were deemed too rowdy for sensibilities, and the elimination of booze seemed a "progressive" fix for such unpleasantness.

Don't you see? "Progressive" prejudices of every little inconvenience to society have a tendency to coalesce into populist movements that seek to legislatively limit our freedoms of choice and association.
And at the same time, such populist movements have a tendency to disregard long-established mores and morality in favor of "interpretive" solutions that, on the surface, appear to defend individual liberties, yet in reality merely serve to distance the People from their governance.

The Left really likes Band-Aids. Progressive poultices and Socialist sutures seek to remedy all the ills of society.
But a conservative's viewpoint would be more along the lines of the old adage "an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure"......
And the best way to advance that wisdom would of course be, as you so elegantly put it, a "delusional attempt to return "Freedom", "morality", "family values", "traditional values", "religious freedom", and "decency" to this country."

Buzz words they certainly are, yet there is no need to "turn back the clock" because the morality and values those buzzwords represent will NEVER GO AWAY no matter how much social or technological advancement takes place. The morality of mutually beneficial exchange and association, and the value of private ownership of property just happens to be the basis and foundation of our Republic's constitutional law. Law that is established to Secure the Blessings of Liberty, Provide for the Common defense, and Promote the General Welfare and prosperity of our Nation, the United States of America. If that "agenda" is poisonous, then pour me a glass!

Any "interpretation" of Constitutional legislation must adhere to the above principles. Beyond that, the States are free to enjoy the trial-and-error of forming a More Perfect union.

Hope this helps to clear things up for you, Robert.

[Walt]

Selwyn wrote,

"You are exhibiting something ex-KGB agent and Soviet defector Yuri Bezmenov spoke of when he talked about the effects of subversion. That is, you are detached from reason."

In the book "The Screwtape Letters", Screwtape, giving instruction to Wormwood, his demon in traning, advised his understudy (I quote loosley) "you must keep your man focused on jargon and far away from reason. In the area of reason the Enemy has the advantage."

[Philip France]

Thank you Selwyn for taking the irrational and delusional Robert Berger to the proverbial woodshed and for calling him out for his penchant for vomiting his odious and putrid rantings on the pages of your website.

It is time for all of us to rise up and confront this evil and wicked disparaging of the righteous and Godly foundational principles of our Republic.

Let us reclaim our liberties now with our words and our thoughts, rather than with guns and swords and let us place irrational lunatics like Robert Berger and his ilk in the pillories of public shame rather than behind bars.

Or worse.

Merry Christmas to the family of readers at www.selynduke.com, including all of his lunatic agitators.

To all, tidings of comfort and joy.

[Robert Berger]

I'm no "irrational lunatic". I know exactly what I'm talking about.
The question of Prohibition illustrates exactly what I'm trying to prove to you, despite your obtuseness.
Did prohibition do any good for America?
Are you kidding? All it did was provide a field day for gangsters like Al Capone.
It was a futile and stupid thing to make alcohol illegal by a ridiculous and totally unconstitutional amendment which a bunch of self-righteous idiots wheedled the US government into passing.
See what I mean? Theoretically, any group of people with any cockamamie idea could get the US government through the supremem court make virtually anything illegal, even the most innocuous things.
Suppose some group of extremist religious wackos got it into their heads that barbecues are an abomination and against the will of god, and organized a campaign to make barbecues illegal.
And like the despicable "reverend" Fred Phelps, they went all over the USA protesting against barbecues and holding up signs saying"God hates barbecues", and If you barbecue, God will damn you to hell!" "God will barbecue YOU!"
Theoretically, these nut cases could wheedle the government into making barbecues illegal and arresting,
prosecuting, imprisoning and possibly executing any one caught having a barbecue.
These imbeciles would say"Where in the constitution does it say we may hold barbecues?". Get my point?

[Walt]

So Robert, would it not have been better if Prohibition were tried at the state level before they enforced it nation wide? Perhaps we could have dodged a bullet if we would have stayed within the constraints of the original Constitution and Bill of Rights. Unlike Roe v Wade, prohibition was actually an amendment to the Constitution, that over rode the 10th amendment; a proper execution of a poor law.

On another note, you must admit the world would be a much better place without the dregs of alcohol abuse. Prohibition in theory was an attempt to better the human condition, and it did not fail because the theory was wrong but because of wicked people. People willing to destroy the lives of others and break the law for the love of power and decadence...men like Joe Kennedy.

As to the rest of your post...huh?

[yoyo]

Walt, talk about evasion! Robert gives you concrete examples and you elide, slip and slide over his points rather than address them. Phil just abuses Robert in the nastiest terms. Both of you by your own words would end up in bed with Al Capone AND Fred Phelps. By Walts arguments if fred can convince just one more moron than 50% who choose to vote he has the right in any particular state to cripple or torture at will, states right rule OK?

The sole reason for a federal government is to keep you a coutry rather than a set of fiefdoms.

[Walt]

There you go again Yoyo..." By Walts arguments if fred can convince just one more moron than 50% who choose to vote he has the right in any particular state to cripple or torture at will, states right rule OK?"

You assume a pure democracy in the terms of your argument; none of the states are pure democracies, rather constitutional representative republics. In such a state neither the electorate nor the representatives have the right to, at their "will", "cripple or torture" (aren't you going to extremes with those type of words?...BHO warns against extremists).

Otherwise, I did not skirt Robert's questions at all. Please, specifically pose the point that you imply he made that I did not address to your liking.

I believe the power should be close to the people just as the Bill of Rights makes note. With the majority of the power at the state level, each state can make laws that their leadership deems best. The laws proven good will be copied by the rest of the states and the bad ideas will be rejected by the rest of the states (egg. Massachusetts socialized medicine). Small mistakes in law will be absorbed and corrected on a small scale (at the state level) rather than the whole nation suffering with a bad law in your centralized government ideal.

[Philip France]

Yoyo,

How is demonstrating to Robert that he is wrong abuse? Selwyn spent an entire artcile reinforcing my points (and elaborating on several more).

Happy New Year to all.