Politics and the New Civility
Government expands to meet the demands of an expanding government:
The danger posed by the constitutional conservative approach is to attempt to lash together debates about what the federal government should do and what the Constitution allows it to do.
A white paper by the liberal Center for American Progress spells out the potential consequences of the constitutional conservative vision. Programs such as Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid would be deemed to exceed the federal government’s enumerated powers.
–“Recovering the Constitution from conservatives“, Ruth Marcus, Washington Post, quoted in HotAir.
Gee, and I thought the constitution didn’t matter.
This is the left in power folks. Words mean what they want them to mean. The only parts they seem to read are the establishment and commerce clauses. They get twisted to give government any powers they see fit. When I was a boy, the State of New Mexico had a vote to establish a lottery. One year the referendum passed a lottery amendment to the state constitution. Anti-lottery forces claimed it was unconstitutional. The US Constitution? No the state constitution. They lost.
Thus political language has to consist largely of euphemism, question-begging and sheer cloudy vagueness. Defenseless villages are bombarded from the air, the inhabitants driven out into the countryside, the cattle machine-gunned, the huts set on fire with incendiary bullets: this is called pacification. Millions of peasants are robbed of their farms and sent trudging along the roads with no more than they can carry: this is called transfer of population or rectification of frontiers. People are imprisoned for years without trial, or shot in the back of the neck or sent to die of scurvy in Arctic lumber camps: this is called elimination of unreliable elements. Such phraseology is needed if one wants to name things without calling up mental pictures of them
George Orwell “Politics and the English Language”
cleansing correctness, these arguments try to hide ugly things in nice language. In Ruth Marcus’s article the power grab is crouched in describing programs as needed. First create the need and the program, then find some part of the law to make it legal. See, it’s supposed to be that programs (which are not laws btw) are supposed to operate within the scope of the constitution, then the laws made under that constitution, then under the executive branch’s discretion as provided by the law.
The left howled at George W. Bush’s use of executive orders. They were silent with our current leadership and Clinton’s use of the pen. They keep redefining “the people” to mean anything other than actual people.
Tyrants and monsters try to rule by fiat. Or by force. By mumbo jumbo or by passing laws to give them those powers.
Take the Constitution back? Lefties, you never had it in the first place.