Over the last few decades, no force on earth has been able to halt the explosive growth of U.S. federal debt.
At the conclusion of WWII, fiscal conservatives were aghast that our national debt had ballooned to $259 billion. By the end of the Vietnam War, it stood at $533 billion and, despite urgent warnings, was over $5.6 trillion by the end of the century. Today it stands at $30 trillion after the Biden administration’s horrific spending spree conducted on the pretext of limiting the fallout from COVID.
The reason is pretty simple. Spending other peoples’ money is politically popular. Taxes are not and budget cutting is risky.
We have developed a political culture in which the reelection of incumbents is the highest of all priorities. It is considered perfectly acceptable to just kick the can down the road and let future generations sort out the consequences of our selfishness.
So, for example, when Bush 43 attempted to propose desperately needed reforms for Medicare and Medicaid, he was mercilessly demagogued for “pushing granny over the cliff.” His Republican allies deserted him, and the effort collapsed. Nobody has tried any such thing since, although debt reduction is mathematically impossible without entitlement reform.
It doesn’t take a genius to see where this is going. Interest rates are rising while serious geopolitical threats are forming. We’re backing ourselves into a position of severe internal and external weakness at just the wrong time.
Yet the political class remains unmoved. Some pay lip service to fiscal discipline, but the spending goes on unabated. Student loans, accommodations for illegal immigrants, and missiles for Ukraine on the condition that no Russians will be harmed by their use are all embraced as if unlimited funds are available.
Fortunately, our forefathers anticipated that the government they created would attempt to exceed its limited constitutional powers. They gave the states a powerful tool to defend themselves—the right to amend the Constitution on their own.
Article V of the Constitution mandates that Congress “shall” call a constitutional convention when requested to do so by 2/3 of the states and that any amendments proposed, when ratified by 3/4 of the states, become “Part of this Constitution.”
The founders would be disappointed to know that the states have never exercised this extraordinary privilege. Thomas Jefferson, knowing how these things go, thought a convention of the states would be needed every generation or so to reign in federal government encroachments.
Instead, the states have stood meekly by as the federal government has far surpassed them in power and prestige to the point where calling a convention of the states is seen as an act of rebellion against authority.
But nothing else has worked to restrain federal spending. Millions of dollars have been spent to elect self-described fiscal conservatives, yet it’s beyond obvious that Congress will never reform itself.
Of course, the convention-of-the-states idea has its enemies. Opposition from the spenders on the Left is understandable because they don’t want to end their gravy train. But it is the alliance between the Left and conservative stalwarts like the Eagle Forum and John Birch Society which have effectively stalled progress.
Their arguments are inspired by fear. Their principal objection is the perceived threat of a “runaway convention,” the fear that in a constitutional convention, there would be nothing to stop special interest groups from pushing their agendas from banning abortion to banning guns.
Hogwash. Even if the state legislatures fail to limit the authority of Convention delegates, 38 states must ratify any proposed amendments. That historically has been a very strong protection.
Right-wing opposition seems mostly concerned that the convention could inflict lasting damage to the sanctity of our Constitution. The opposite is the truth.
Nothing could honor and strengthen the Constitution more than using its own provisions to enable us to address our most urgent modern threat. The other option is the Left’s practice of declaring a “living” Constitution that says whatever judges say it does.
It’s time for us to flex our democratic muscles and fulfill our destiny as free, optimistic, and proud Americans. Our republic may be in the balance.
Dr. Thomas Patterson, former Chairman of the Goldwater Institute, is a retired emergency physician. He served as an Arizona State senator for 10 years in the 1990s, and as Majority Leader from 93-96. He is the author of Arizona’s original charter schools bill.
These are fraught days for Americans. History is said to be cyclical but there is widespread concern that we are in inexorable decline.
Our leadership role in the world which seemed secure three decades ago is under serious threat. Polls show that confidence and love of country are in decline, especially among the young. Traditional American values like freedom of speech, free-market economics and responsible fiscal policy are openly attacked.
Meanwhile, e pluribus unum is facing replacement by a culture obsessed with racial identity. MLK’s dream of a society where skin color doesn’t determine our judgments of each other is now itself deemed racist.
America, though, is the longest running liberal democracy in history for a reason: our Constitution. Our great freedom document connects us to our roots, the sources of our strength. It can direct us away from hyperpartisanship toward mutual respect and agreement on shared principles – if we respect its authority.
But the Constitution has been repeatedly ignored and abused in our recent history. Many argue it is an 18th-century construct unsuited to governance in the 21st-century. Others claim it should be seen as a “living” document that means whatever someone says it means without regard to its actual content.
Since the Constitution prescribes limits on governmental powers, it particularly vexes Big Government types wishing to centralize power and enlarge their span of control. For example, a century ago President Woodrow Wilson was an early leader of the Progressive movement, which held that modern government should be guided by administrative agency experts.
Wilson thus opposed the separation of powers doctrine. He cautioned against “the error of trying to do too much by vote“, given the ignorance of the common man.
His legacy of disdain for the Constitution is reflected in today’s administrative state, in which unelected bureaucrats make binding rules (laws), direct the enforcement of those rules and adjudicate violations.
FDR later also regarded the Constitution as a problematic document requiring workarounds for him to be successful in establishing the social welfare programs and regulations thought necessary to rescue America from the Great Depression. He was so frustrated by the Supreme Court striking down his unconstitutional power grabs that he infamously tried to expand the court to15 members.
Roosevelt was temporarily rebuffed but eventually was able to secure so much of his agenda that the role of government in Americans’ everyday lives changed dramatically. Safeguards to liberty like enumerated powers and federalism suffered permanent damage.
Recent presidents have taken the constitutionally curious position that they should be permitted to exceed their normal powers when Congress won’t act as they prescribe. Barack Obama, a former constitutional law professor, correctly stated many times that he wasn’t authorized to suspend DACA deportations through executive order. There were “laws on the books“ and “I am not king“, he pointed out.
But he eventually caved, unilaterally granting work permits and legal status to first millions of illegal immigrants who entered as minors, then later to adults (later struck down). The legal fate of DACA is still pending, despite its continuing unconstitutional status.
Joe Biden used the same logic when confronted with the need for extension of the eviction moratorium passed as an emergency pandemic measure by the Trump administration. Biden acknowledged that the Supreme Court had already ruled that an extension would require congressional approval. But to appease his party’s lefties, he did it anyway, expressly ignoring the Constitution.
Donald Trump was also loathe to let the constitution interfere with what he wanted to do anyway. His most egregious transgression was pressuring Vice President Pence to reject the electoral ballots lawfully submitted by the states in the 2020 presidential election.
Pence, clearly lacking the constitutional authority to do so, refused. Fortunately, unlike previous miscreants, Trump was so thoroughly rebuked that no precedent for similar actions was created.
Part of the reason America is in trouble is because we are not protective of our Constitution, not outraged when it is abused. Judicial nominees, charged with upholding the Constitution, are vetted instead based on their political agenda.
We demean our constitution at our considerable risk. It is our bulwark against the corruption and chaos that plague impoverished nations around the world.
Dr. Thomas Patterson, former Chairman of the Goldwater Institute, is a retired emergency physician. He served as an Arizona State senator for 10 years in the 1990s, and as Majority Leader from 93-96. He is the author of Arizona’s original charter schools bill.
I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.
In a handful of words, with only slight variations, elected leaders in the United States vow to, “support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.”
What if the domestic enemy is staring back at you in the mirror.
Any elected officer seeking to promote a collectivist, socialist or communist ideology, should on principle, resign immediately. You cannot, at the same time, espouse these ideologies and keep the oath you have sworn to uphold.
I elaborate:
Domestic enemies of the Constitution include those who do not believe in the ideals protected by the Constitution or the Federal Republic which it creates.
Abraham Lincoln taught that the Constitution was created to protect the principles, ideals and values as set forth in the Declaration of Independence. The Constitution, thus, should be viewed as the “strong box” protecting the precious truths written by Thomas Jefferson and unveiled to the world on July 4, 1776.
Included in these truths are the following:
That “all men are created equal.”
American patriots still believe this to be true but if one has a Marxist belief system, he does not. Marxists believe that there are oppressors and the oppressed, perpetrators and victims.
If one falls into the oppressor or perpetrator class, as determined by them, then he/she is not to be treated equally but as a cancer to be eviscerated. This person is to be demonized, ridiculed and accused of nefarious deeds regardless of individual ideas, thoughts, and history.
And, of course, if everyone is treated equally, it means we will not have equal outcomes. That is not fair to communists.
So, “equity” — equality of outcome — becomes the new mantra. In 2021, it is this clamor, unnerving and morally debased, that needs to be called out and extinguished.
We must grasp that we cannot have a nation that is free and treats everyone equal and, simultaneously, one that promotes “equity.”
Next, the phrase, “that they are endowed by their creator.”
Stop right there. Marxists believe there is no God and, therefore, He cannot endow anyone with anything. The only endowing, in fact, is that performed by earthly mandates from those in power. Therefore, securing that power is justified by any means.
I offer, “with certain unalienable rights.”
Marxists do not believe in unalienable rights to individuals. This belief messes up governments’ ability to do what they thinks is best for the collective.
If individuals have unalienable rights, this automatically neutralizes the power of a centralized authority.
I offer, “that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”
Each one of these flies in the face of Marxism. To them, your life is not your own, liberty is a hiss and byword as it can be used against the states’ interest, and one’s pursuit of happiness is not a concern. Your happiness may conflict with what government deems best for all.
Of course, control of private property is part of the, “liberty and pursuit of happiness,” claim in the Declaration as per Madison and Jefferson. But protection of private property is to be shunned by Marxists, as “equity” cannot be attained when people control what they produce or own.
I offer, “that to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men.”
“Heresy!”, is the cry of Marxists. Governments set up to protect individual rights as its primary function!? How do we get anything done with that? Surely, governments need to be set up to make life fair and equitable; to force people to do the right thing; and to comply with what we think is right. So, say communists.
Make no doubt, this is the big one.
Patriots still believe that protecting our liberty is government’s primary role while the enemies of liberty have other priorities. We have had many priorities subvert that of liberty of late. Let’s not forget what we allowed our governors to do under the guise of our safety this past year.
I offer, “deriving their just powers by the consent of the governed.”
Marxists believe that we cannot function and create a utopia that is “just and fair” to all with only limited powers delegated to government by the people.
Government must be the arbiters of its own power. The people know nothing of what is best for them. Limited powers delegated are too restrictive and will delay the work that needs to be done. Expediency and today’s exigencies are what is important and no parchment barrier, like the Constitution, should be allowed to get in the way of progress, they contend.
So, we see that Marxists of all shapes and sizes do not believe in the fundamental truths that all Americans used to believe in from birth. The American Creed, the second paragraph of the Declaration, was the vision we all embraced.
Today, we see this common belief is no longer embraced by all – but something to be scourged by the American Left.
And the same people that deride the ideals in the Declaration are attempting to destroy the document constructed to protect it.
The Constitution is a compact among the states that grants limited power to the federal government for a reason. These limitations of power inhibit the ability of authoritarians to do as they wish. Destroying these limitations is, in fact, a defection to Marxism.
Federalism, or the separation of powers between the national government, the states, and the people, is to be overcome by ignoring those inconvenient restrictions contained within the Constitution — and concentrating all political power in Washington, D.C.
Marxists also do not believe in the separation of powers between executive, legislative and judicial branches. All are to be used as tools to consolidate power and by any means necessary. Illegal executives-orders, legislating from the bench or creating laws through bureaucratic overreach are all legitimate tools, provided they further the cause.
The Bill of Rights? Nothing sacred here to Marxists.
Freedom of speech and the press should be curtailed for our own good. Only ”correct ideas,” approved by social media giants should be aired to public audiences. Freedom of religion is a privilege, not a right. Forget the 2nd Amendment. Due process, the taking of private property without compensation and Equal Protection Clause are all outdated and, in fact, impede what is needed today in order to make progress.
Arbitrary edicts and rule from on-high with few legislatures in-session or consulted about issues that deal with, “we, the people?”
Didn’t we fight a revolutionary war that dealt with lack of representation?
We have come so far.
Few of our elected officials openly endorse Marxism or Communism, but by looking at the policies they support, we know where their true allegiance lies, and it is not to the Constitution or the ideals it protects.
Jeff Utsch, of Tucson, AZ, is an instructor at the Leadership and Freedom center in Gettysburg PA and teaches on the Constitution around the nation. You can find published articles, podcasts, and commentary at www.jeffutsch.com. He can be reached at Jeff@jeffutsch.com
