A presidential debate on the Constitution
By Norman Leahy | Monday, September 19th, 2011 | PoliticsAttorney General Ken Cuccinelli caused a bit of a stir with his speech at Mary Washington University before an audience of which, apparently, was comprised “nearly entirely of protesters interrupted him frequently and held up signs criticizing his policies.” To read from the comments on the story, the protesters were still feeling their oats, confidently calling Cuccinelli a “bigot” while also reveling in the pride they felt at being members of the MWU community.
While one can question the audience’s manners, and the pride it takes in its incivility, the familiar thrust of Cuccinelli’s remarks — that the federal government has over-reached its authority in any number of areas — is my main object.
There’s a lot of talk about the Constitution — what it means, what it should mean, what it might mean if you hold it just so in the light. Some of this talk is useful. But the more people talk about the nation’s fundamental law, the more common it is for shorthand, and even outright falsehood, to seep into the discussion. That’s not only bad, but dangerous.
In today’s Wall Street Journal, Seth Lipsky suggests that one way to combat this dumbing-down, at least among the political class, is to hold a televised debate on the Constitution. More specifically, he wants the GOP presidential candidates, who otherwise make “glancing references” to the document, to revise and extend their remarks:
Let the candidates really get it on over how they understand the document that whoever wins the presidency will swear to preserve, protect and defend. How would the Constitution guide them should they become president of America?
He offers possible areas for debate, such as on the exact, constitutional nature of treason, on whether the document provides legitimacy to the Federal Reserve and Social Security and on the primacy of the federal government in immigration policy.
His aim is a noble one:
There is so much to debate about the Constitution—war powers, gay marriage, birthright citizenship, the gold standard, the role of the vice president, campaign funding. One could go on. Holding a debate centered on the Constitution could bring a coherence to the campaign.
Coherence, yes. It would also tell us a great deal about the candidates. Who has actually read the document? Which of them have done more than read the Cliffs Notes version of The Federalist Papers? We might even discover one or two who’ve actually read Joseph Story’s Commentaries, and perhaps even the outlier who has plunged into the seminal rulings of John Marshall’s Supreme Court.
It would also provide the very useful service of telling us which candidate(s) wouldn’t know the Constitution from a nutrition label on a cereal box.
And, under Lipsky’s vision, there might even be something for Mr. Cuccinelli to sink his teeth into:
One of the big issues this year is the Commerce Clause, one of the grounds on which the Obama administration is claiming the right to have passed ObamaCare. The clause gives Congress the power to “regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes.” Do the candidates who reckon that Congress can use this clause to reach into a state to regulate economic activity there also reckon that they can reach into foreign nations and the Indian tribes and regulate their commerce, too?
There’s no better way to find out than to have just such a debate. Heck, I might even watch it, rather than catching the re-runs of Top Gear.
Tags:
Contribute for Conservatism!
Share this post
About the author
Norm Leahy has written about Virginia and national politics online since 2002, beginning with One Man's Trash (OMT), and continuing through Bacon's Rebellion (both the blog and the e-zine), Sic Semper Tyrannis, NBC12's Decision Virginia, Richmond.com and Tertium Quids. He is the chief blogger at "The Score" and a producer of "The Score" radio show as well as being a Washington Examiner contributor.
We're 75% there! Thank you to everyone who has so far contributed! Just $2000 to go!
Comments
17 Responses to "A presidential debate on the Constitution"
Such is the quality of Mary Washington. When it’s Parent’s Weekend, they take down all the signs and posters… and once they go home, all the batshit crazy lesbian, eco-warrior, and stuff-that-won’t-get-you-employed crap comes out to play…
Disgusting.
Of course, this is the kind of debate on the Constitution that you’d find on PBS or something, almost BBC-ish in scope. Heck — if done right, maybe we could have an honest airing of differences without the ignorance of someone in the crowd screaming “bigot” whenever they disagree with the speaker.
Such is the quality of a Mary Washington education. And the quality of any conservative that has emerged from Mary Washington and, indeed, remained a conservative by defending common sense in an openly hostile environment totally closed to independent thought.
Open debate would be a grand idea, Norm. Wish folks would have an in-depth conversation about the quality of our Virginia Constitution as well. Too many so-called “constitutionalists” who have not once picked up a copy of their state constitution and read it through. Sad to see…
I noticed that no one is suggesting that any such debate include Barack Obama or any Democrats. I assume this is because it is so obvious that Obama and his Democrats couldn’t care less about the Constitution?
The problem is non-adherence by legislators and political officials to the “protect and defend” the Constitution. Laws and executive orders “ran up the flag pole” are in force only until they are deemed unconstitutional by adjudication. The exorbitant monetary costs are borne by the private fund challenger, while the defense is supported by a bottomless pit of public funds.
More importantly, is the direct attempts by administrations to skirt around the Constitution. For example, although we are “at war” with an undefined entity, we are not at war because Congress didn’t declare war (Constitution). Therefore, it is OK it perform “enhanced” interrogation tactics (previously deemed torture and war crimes by the Geneva accords) and imprison individuals indefinitely without trial or charges.
I’d actually like to see this. It goes to a lack I noticed during the presidential debates in 2008. I wanted Obama and McCain…and I guess before them, the whole Dem and GOP fields …to be asked questions about how they saw the office of the president in comparison to Congress and the courts. How much authority they thought the president had to unilaterally put the U.S. on a course of action (such as committing U.S. forces, wiretapping U.S. citizens or torturing prisoners) without the consent of Congress. Instead in the Dem primary debates we got endless arguements over the details of the respective health care plans that were as significant as discussion of how may angels could dance on the head of a pin and on the GOP side a contest of who could invoke the ghost of Ronald Reagan most often. It would be great to hear the two candidates debate how they see the office they are asking use to elect them to.
Candidates for national office, can redefine, misquote, and otherwise mutilate the Constitution because the average voter doesn’t know any better. I will never forget reading several comments recently in the Washington Post concerning Republican opposition to Obama in the House. Not only did more than one commenter opine that Obama should “dismiss” or “fire” the Republicans from Congress, but the comments had double-digit recommendations. Such is the knowledge of the Constitution on the part of people who help elect our President.
I have proposed for years that, as part of the voter registration process, would-be voters should be required to pass the citizenship test that aliens seeking naturalization must take. If you don’t understand your own government at an eighth grade civics class level, then you are not informed enough to cast a responsible ballot.
Hisroc, do you suggest that the The Voting Rights Act of 1965 (42 U.S.C. §§ 1973–1973aa-6) which specifically outlaws the practice of requiring otherwise qualified voters to pass literacy tests in order to register to vote?
Correction Added: ….be overturned?
Wally,
You’re making this too easy. I was certain someone was going to drag out the Fourteen Amendment, which BTW does not specifically guarantee the right to vote, just due process and equal treatment under the law, both state and Federal.
The Voting Rights Act can be amended or repealed by an act of Congress, just like the way that the liberals are pounding for the Bush tax roll-backs to be repealed. (They weren’t tax cuts, they were a roll-back of the Clinton tax increases.) Also, a citizenship test, if administered verbally is not a literacy test per se. But we can pretend that it is just for the sake of argument.
The Voting Rights Act and three constitutional amendments that prevent discrimination in granting the federal franchise have established in United States Supreme Court jurisprudence that there is a “fundamental right” in the franchise. The portion of the Voting Rights Act concerning poll taxes and literacy tests are permanent. The temporary portions have been renewed on four separate occasions. In 2006, an extension renewed the temporary portions of the Act (Section 5 addressing pre-clearance of major importance for most of Virginia) for another 25 years (House 390-33, Senate 98-0, President G.W. Bush).
Weak, Wally. Are you trying to maintain that a favorable judicial review of an act of Congress makes it irrevocable? Where does that leave the Telecommunications Tax that was passed during the Spanish-American War?
The portion of the Voting Rights Act concerning poll taxes and literacy tests are permanent only to the extent that Congress chooses not to amend or repeal them. Any such amendment or repeal would then be subject to judicial review.
The point is, that any chance to change the Voting Rights Act based upon its 46 year history and renewal of friendly amendments, render your suggestion of a citizenship test for an otherwise qualified voter moot. Moreover, such a test would be viewed discriminatory.
“We might even discover one or two who’ve actually read Joseph Story’s Commentaries, and perhaps even the outlier who has plunged into the seminal rulings of John Marshall’s Supreme Court.”
More relevantly, we might discover a few who’ve read more extended works of the various framers, Madison’s Notes, the Federalist and Anti-Federalist Papers, and especially the Virginia Ratification Debates. Such people could be counted on to have a serious debate about what the intent of the document actually is.
Relying on what various SC boobs have to say about the Constitution is a boobs’ errand. Kelo, anyone?
I welcome the additions, Jamie. But Story’s Commentaries and Marshall’s opinions ought to be part of any complete understanding of how the Constitution went from print to practice.
I really like the idea of a debate that goes more to “first principles” than whatever the fleeting issue of the day is.
“Define what you think the role of the federal government should be, avoiding platitudes and concentraring on specifics. If you think it should be limited, what current functions of the government would you have us end? If you think the government should have a more expansive role, what do you see as its limits? What should govenrment do and what should it not do..specifically.”
That would be more informative than the details of some proposal the candidate has, which will be change beyond recognition by Congress if it’s ever acted on at all.
“…the details of some proposal the candidate has, which will be change beyond recognition by Congress if it’s ever acted on at all.”
Steve,
You have just nailed what annoys me the most about presidential debates. You would think that the candidates were running for emperor rather than chief executive. “When I am elected I will blah, blah, blah.” As if the President can raise/lower taxes, create jobs, end poverty, and reverse global climate change by royal decree with no input or action by the Congress whatsoever.
That, IMHO, was what got Obama sideways with his liberal base in his first two years. He was going to bring all the troops home from Iraq and Afghanistan by the end of 2009, close Gitmo, repeal the Patriot Act, and stop unemployment at 8%. Not to mention pass a single-payer universal health care plan. He couldn’t do any of that even with Democratic majorities in both houses of Congress. Now he is playing an equally dangerous game of mismanaging expectations with his Jobs Bill. He knows that it won’t pass in Congress, but he is hoping that the Republicans will get the blame. If Boehner & Company were smart, they would bring the bill to the House floor and pass it by acclamation. Then they could watch it blow up in the Democrats faces just in time for the 2012 general election.
HR-While I’m in general agreement with what you said”
1. Obama never advocated single-payer health insurance. I, for one, would have been more enthusiastic about his campaign if he had.
2. The jobs proposal/tax proposal isn’t being pushed because Obama thinks Congress will “pass this bill.” It’s a campaign tool. He wanst to be able to say Republicans wouldn’t raise taxes on rich folks while raising them on the middle class and refusing to help the jobless. He’ll move left in his re-election campaign, somewhere between FDB 1932- “malefactors of great wealth” and Truman 1948- “do nothing Congress.”
Steve,
At the risk of picking any argument with someone who buys ink by the barrel, go back and look at Obama’s campaign speeches. During the primary debates, he criticized Clinton’s position on single-payer as unworkable. As soon as he had the nomination, he flip-flopped and put single-payer on the table to appease the left. When ObamaCare was struggling to pass the House, he dropped it. Look up his campaign speech in Albuquerque, NM, in August 2008, just after the convention.
As for number 2, that is my point exactly.
Leave your response