 |
The Constitutional Argument |
 |
(This post is part of the MyDD candidate series. I'm not affiliated with the Dodd campaign in any way.)
There is a powerful argument resonating in America today. It says that America is strong if we follow our laws. More specifically, it says America is at its best when we follow the Constitution, the bedrock of our government.
George Bush has made innumerable mistakes as President. He's gotten us involved in a never ending war in Iraq. He's rolled back environmental protections. He's undercut the economy, let the dollar sink to record lows, and harmed the middle class. But the offenses Bush has committed against the Constitution - signing statements, warrantless wiretapping, the suspension of habeas corpus - provoke the strongest reaction from Americans.
Bush expanded the power of the executive at the expense of the Constitution. In 2008, we need not only a President who will fight for progressive values - healthcare, the middle class, diplomacy-based foreign policy - but one who will actively roll back Bush's excesses. This is easier said than done. John Nichols, a writer for The Nation, examines the issue while arguing for impeachment:
On January 20th, 2009, if George Bush and Dick Cheney are not appropriately held to account this administration will hand off a toolbox with more powers than any president has ever had, more powers than the founders could have imagined. And that box may be handed to Hillary Clinton or it may be handed to Mitt Romney or Barack Obama or someone else. But whoever gets it, one of the things we know about power is that people don't give away the tools. They don't give them up. The only way we take tools out of that box is if we sanction George Bush and Dick Cheney now and say the next president cannot govern as these men have.
The only candidate from either party that I would trust to shrink executive power is one who makes the Constitution central to his or her arguments, as returning to the Constitution ensures all areas of Bush's expansion are addressed.
The Constitution lies at the heart of Chris Dodd's appeal. He is most known in this campaign for his work on issues in the Senate such as restoring habeas corpus and fighting against telecom immunity. Both of these issues are rooted in the Constitutional argument, and for this reason, I believe, they have been Dodd's most successful to date.
Dodd has also specifically addressed the Constitution at a couple points in his campaign. He makes the very argument that the Constitution protects the country:
We Americans understand it is not always the example of our force that keeps us safe - but rather the force of our example. We understand that our leaders do not swear to support and defend the Constitution or protect the country - that is a false choice.
Rather, we defend the Constitution–and the values it expresses–precisely to protect the country. America's moral authority isn't incidental to our security - it's the very foundation. Restoring our belief in this most fundamental of American principles is the challenge we face today.
He's made the Constitutional argument in other places as well (like the Republican YouTube debate).
I know Dodd has a huge respect for the Constitution, and I see how he has been making the Constitutional argument implicitly throughout his campaign. I personally trust him to take on Bush's expanded executive powers. I like how his message has evolved thus far, and I hope to see him use the Constitutional argument more explicitly as the campaigns start their final pushes towards the primary.
I want Dodd to use this argument because I feel it would win him support from a diverse set of American voters and because I feel it would make his message stronger. It would distinguish his candidacy from others in a crowded field. Most importantly, making the Constitutional argument explicit would tell voters in no uncertain terms that Chris Dodd will roll back Bush's expansion of executive power, and that is what I most want in a nominee.
Dodd staffers, if you're reading, please consider my request.
(cross posted at MyDD)Â
Nice piece!
Ride it like you stole it
I would like all the Democratic candidates to take that pledge. I know that would make it less of a distinguishing issue for Dodd, but it would make it more of an issue in the general.
Too bad Dodd doesn't understand the 2nd Amendment, otherwise I might vote for him. I don't even own a gun, but Dodd supports the "assault weapons" ban that caused us Dems to lose the 1994, 1996, 1998, 2000, 2002, and 2004 Congressional elections, the 2000 and 2004 presidential elections, and gave us the Iraq War.
http://www1.wsvn.com/news/articles/voice_your_choice/MI44317/
"Gun Control: Voted for ban on assault-type weapons"
As I've said before, we Dems cannot afford to put forth a candidate espousing gun control measures like Dodd. We will (deservedly) lose.
Even Bill Clinton knows that gun control causes Dems to lose, lose, lose:
"The fight for the Assault Weapons Ban cost 20 [Democrats] their seats in Congress."
–Bill Clinton, 2004
If Dodd put something out there rejecting his past support of gun control, he might be a worthy candidate. Until he does, he's not worth Dems' time, money, or support.
Never heard of Ron Paul? The Constitution is absolutely central to everything he says, he talks about it all the time, and has a 20 year voting record to prove he means it. He voted against PATRIOT, against the Military Commissions Act, talks about rolling this stuff back and restoring habeas corpus in every speech he makes, and jokes that he wants to reduce the power of the presidency so much that if he wins he ought to take a cut in salary.
I've got respect for Dodd, too, but he's got nowhere near the level of support Paul has. $11 million raised this quarter so far, lot of straw poll wins, and 80,000 Meetup members doing real-world volunteer work: writing letters, canvassing neighborhoods, making phone calls, attending rallies, waving signs on street corners. If you want a Constitutionalist who actually has a shot, Paul's your man.
Of course, he's Republican, and pro-life. But so is the current president, and we still have Roe v. Wade. So that shouldn't be a dealbreaker, to anyone who's realistic about it.
Ron Paul's stances on abortion, the economy, taxes, the FDA, the environment, net neutrality, war and peace, and just about everything else make him unsupportable as a liberal voter. It's great that he's anti-war, pro-Constitution, and anti-drug war. Fabulous. But he's not the candidate in the race with the most support or with the best ideas that I agree with.
I'm a bit confused on your reasoning behind this rejection of Ron Paul. You claim in your article to support a return to the foundations outlined in the Constitution. Yet, nearly all of Ron Paul's ideas are firmly rooted in the Constitution. Yes, he is personally anti-abortion and believes life begins at conception (and,as an OB/GYN, has delivered over 4,000 babies, so his opinions should be considered, at the very least, 'expert') but understands that the Constitution provides the federal government no authority to legislate on the issue, and has consistently advocated returning that authority to the states.Similarly, his stances on the FDA, the environment, as well as his more radical views like the abolition of the IRS and the Department of Education are all routed in the ideas and words our founding fathers wrote down in the Constitution. So are you saying you only want to see a return to SOME of the Constitution, throwing out whatever sections you don't agree with while overemphasizing others? That seems, at least to me, to be suspiciously like what other presidents have done. Chris Dodd is a lightweight that has yet to break above 2% in any poll. I'm certainly not touting Ron Paul's 4-7% as anything breathtaking but if your main concern in the 2008 presidential election really is, as you say, finding someone who will "roll back Bush's expansion of executive power" then I have to agree with Dennis, Ron Paul is your man.
Both Paul and Dodd's arguments are rooted in Constitutional logic. I just don't agree with Paul's interpretation. The FDA, IRS, DOE, those are Constitutional in my book. That's why I can't support Paul. His ideas about the Constitution are wrong, at least to me.
Hello Jason,
I read your post and I am happy to see someone making some sense out there. I admit I am Ron Paul supporter so I don't agree with you whole heartedly, but I think Dodd is definitely a good apple. When you say you don't agree with RP about his position on the IRS, what makes you think that way? Have you seen America: Freedom to Fascism? It certainly has its problems but the history provided about how we came to have an IRS is very interesting and worth a watch. If we had more people like Paul, Dodd, and Kucinich, America would be much better off. Oh yeah, we also need more people like us, who give a shit. Cheers.
I certainly echo your sentiment in general. As Red Wind said above, all candidates should take this "pledge" and explicitly protect the Constitution.
As for the IRS, I just think it's a rather silly notion. Alex Thurston has made this point. I mean, if you have a federal government (and the Constitution provides for that), then that government needs revenue. You might even call that internal revenue. And they will need a service to manage that revenue. Thus, the IRS.
Not that I'm saying the IRS or the tax code can't be reformed, but there is nothing wrong with the IRS of federal taxes on principle. Ron Paul doesn't seem to agree.
Ron Paul is not against all taxes, our country and our Federal goverment survived for a very long time without an IRS and income tax…
I find it kind of odd that you kind of ream Bush for his Constitution-shredding while advocating for a president who will set up nationalized health care… In Federalist Paper #45, James Madison (happens to be a president and signatory to the Constitution) clearly argued that the purpose of the federalism present in our current governmental configuration (one of my professors defines federalism as dividing power between two independent, sovereign authorities operating over the same geographic expanse, in case we're unclear about what that means) is to have the national government be solely concerned with issues that affect the nation as a whole - namely, crimes against the nation committed by 1) citizens and 2) foreign powers. In other words, protect against foreign invaders and ensure the domestic tranquility. The issues relating to health, Madison says, are solely in the realm of the state governments' powers, along with issues pertaining to "the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State." So it seems hard to justify you describing a candidate who dares to deal with anything pertaining to health care in any form as "Constitutional" - this sort of guy is not any more Constitutional in the slightest because this sort is only respecting the Constitution on certain issues. And how is that any different from Bush, who picks and chooses what parts of the Constitution he wants to follow?
Your definition of federalism simply doesn't work. The idea that individual states within the US are, or could be, in any way sovereign is ridiculous. Can they issue currency? Can they raise independent armies? Set up border checkpoints and not allow citizens from other states to enter? The US is a sovereign entity. Kansas or Delaware or Colorado by no stretch of the imagination are.
I think you missed my point, Alex. The point is that they are independent and sovereign within their realms of decision-making. As I said, the states have the rights to make decisions pertaining to the life, liberty, property, prosperity, money and morals (ok, I added the morals part - but that is present in other parts of the federalist papers, which, need I stress it unnecessarily, were written by individuals involved in the founding of our country) of their citizens.
The national government's proper domain of action and area of main concern is in protecting the nation as a whole from external and internal attacking forces that could jeopardize the rights of the states and therefore people. Within these realms of decision - again, established by the founding fathers, no less - the two levels of government are - not in fact, but they should be - independent and sovereign. The national government has no right to imtrude on issues that concern the state, and the states have no right to interfere in the powers of the national government.
I'm not going to discuss things on the basis on definitions I don't agree with. First we have to define "federalism" in a way I don't agree with, and now we have to define "sovereignty" differently too? If I accept your definitions, I basically accept your arguments, so I refuse from the beginning.
All of these arguments about states' rights simply don't take change over time into account. A state does not mean the same thing in 2007 that it did in Madison's time. The distinct cultural identities of states are rapidly disappearing. We live in a mass culture. So we can debate the theoretical value of states' rights I suppose, but if you're expecting to see some decentralization of power in America you're fooling yourself. We need better government at the federal level, not less government.
And of course that's your right to hold that view; my point is basically that a candidate who embodies those values is still not constitutional.
I would disagree that the changes over time of states have that great of an effect on the applicability of the Constitution.
What hasn't changed about the states in all of 200-something years is that they are still more in touch with the needs of their people. One of the goals of having a collective government over and above all the people in the nation that has supreme authority over them is to reduce the effect of factions on the people (you can read more about this in Federalist Paper 10). The way to accomplish this? "Extend the sphere" so that more people are involved, which means that more representatives are present, which means there is less of a chance of agreeing on extreme views.
This works great for nationwide laws that relate to the safety and security of the nation; not so much for issues that concern individual things such as healthcare that can vary so greatly. Imposing nationalized health care on everyone very well violates some viewpoints - it is a faction, and the opposing viewpoint is a faction. And different states have different constituencies who may feel differently about healthcare, etc. Californians and members of 18 other (I think?) states happen to think marijuana is a legitimate medicine. Other states don't believe that this is OK. So the states make laws respecting the desires of their constituencies. That still happens. Happened two hundred years ago, happens now. What happens when the national government makes a law banning marijuana across the board? It violates the rights and desires of the people as parts of the states. That hasn't changed either - so one faction, one minority group (536 individuals, to be exact - House, Senate, and President) is imposing their will on the rest of the nation. This is faction at its worst, and allowing the states to deal with issues that concern health, as with this case, was aimed at remedying this sort of problem. So the Constitution is neither irrelevant or inapplicable. To dismiss it as such is to miss the extreme similarities between states today and states then.
Apologizes, not "set up national health care" - it doesn't even have to be that strong to violate the Constitution's principles. So read as "handle health care in any way".