Damn Right I'm A Libertarian

The Misuse of Constitutional Claims in Political Rhetoric

During election cycles, such as the one leading up to November 2, 2010, political candidates frequently tout their allegiance to the Constitution to gain favor with voters. In the Utah U.S. Senate race, for instance, both Mike Lee and Tim Bridgewater claimed the Constitution as their guiding principle. However, their stances on issues like birthright citizenship and Social Security raise questions about their constitutional fidelity. Mike Lee's suggestion to raise the retirement age as a solution to Social Security challenges, for example, does not address the root problems of this institution but rather, sidesteps the constitutional debate surrounding its existence.

Historical Context and Constitutional Amendments

The War on Drugs is often cited as a constitutional anomaly, reminiscent of the Prohibition era, which required the 18th Amendment for alcohol prohibition to be legally enforced. Unlike Prohibition, no such amendment exists for the War on Drugs, calling into question its constitutional validity. Furthermore, the 21st Amendment, which ended Prohibition with Utah casting the decisive vote, highlights the state's pivotal role in shaping alcohol-related laws, which remain uniquely stringent to this day.

The Satirical Insight and the Reality of Constitutional Interpretation

A satirical headline from The Onion humorously critiques an individual's passionate defense of a misunderstood Constitution, shedding light on a broader issue: the selective interpretation of this crucial document. This "A La Carte Constitutionalism" is prevalent among those who claim adherence to the Constitution while cherry-picking aspects that support their political agenda. As noted by libertarian thinker Murray Rothbard, the interpretation of the Constitution often expands governmental powers, contrary to its intended purpose of limiting them.

The Diverse Schools of Constitutional Thought

In the U.S., two primary schools of thought exist regarding constitutional interpretation: Originalism and the Living Constitution. Originalists like Justice Antonin Scalia argue that the Constitution should be interpreted based on the original understanding at the time it was adopted. In contrast, proponents of the Living Constitution, like Justice Stephen Breyer, believe it should evolve to meet contemporary societal needs. This debate is crucial as it influences how laws are interpreted and applied, impacting everything from civil rights to technological advancements.

The Flaws and Challenges of Originalism

Originalism faces criticism for its perceived attempt to divine the specific intentions of the Founding Fathers, despite the vast changes in society since the 18th century. Issues like digital privacy or bioethical dilemmas involving stem-cell research were unimaginable to the Constitution's framers, challenging the applicability of Originalist principles in modern governance.

Conclusion: The Need for a Nuanced Understanding

As political rhetoric increasingly misuses constitutional principles, a deeper, more nuanced understanding of the Constitution is essential. This understanding must transcend political affiliations and focus on the core values and limitations that the document imposes on government power. Only through informed debate and respect for the Constitution’s original context can we hope to address the pressing issues of our time while honoring the foundational framework of American democracy.

For those interested in a deeper exploration of these themes, further reading and resources are available here and here.

In conclusion, while the allure of being a "constitutionalist" may serve electoral purposes, it demands a genuine commitment to understanding and upholding the entire Constitution, not just the convenient parts.