Until the 1960s, most liberals believed it was inevitable that their living Constitution would replace the conservative Constitution through a kind of slow-motion evolution. But during the sixties, the so-called New Left abandoned evolution for revolution, and partly in reaction to that, defenders of the old Constitution began not merely to fight back, but to call for a return to America’s first principles. By seeking to revolve back to the starting point, conservatives proved to be Newtonians after all—and also, in a way, revolutionaries, since the original meaning of revolution is to return to where you began, as a celestial body revolves in the heavens.
The conservative campaign against the inevitable victory of the living Constitution gained steam as a campaign against the gradual or sudden disappearance of limited government and of republican virtue in our political life. And when it became clear, by the late 1970s and 1980s, that the conservatives weren’t going away, the cold civil war was on.
Kesler leaves out a sixth possibility for resolving the cold civil war—that instead of persuading believers in the real “conservative” constitution to vote against their principles (and best interests), the globalists favouring a “living” constitution that says whatever they damn well want it to say will simply drive the conservatives into extinction.
That is exactly what they are doing now. Barring a hot civil war, in which the globalists are defeated amd liquidated, and the riffraff who support them exterminated or driven out, the plan’s success is only a matter of time.
the globalists favouring a “living” constitution that says whatever they damn well want it to say will simply drive the conservatives into extinction
That might be one reason why Sire of Prinz Dummkopf saddled this country with his clunker. We’ve been find out a lot lately that, according to that document, black might not actually be black but could be other colours, depending upon circumstances which fit the leftist agenda.
The analysis presented applies greatly to Canada, as well.
The Supremes have taken what they call “the living tree” view of Common-law and the Constitutional traditions. The Constitution is whatever the hell they want it to mean. They have repeatedly chosen to legislate from the bench and to dispense with the originating concepts of individual rights, preceding government and the limitations to government that logically stem from the Constitutional premise of Liberty and Rights. This in defiance of historically one, where citizens retain their individual sovereignty, merely delegating their power to elected representatives, but not ever giving it up!
Therefore, our tradition was the government serves and is legitimate by way of the will of the people, and governments lose their legitimacy to the extent they usurp citizen rights and sovereignty. The Magna Carta view, won repeatedly by viable threat of armed revolution, until those principles became the basis for British Liberty(including the five eyes- 4 colonies and Britain).
Canada’s “living” constitution crowd now dominate both the Liberal and the NDP party(turned into a anti-working class/farmer-labourer political majority. Add in the bureaucracy and the judiciary and the
chances of Canada, being celebrated as free and democratic, self-governing nation-state in 2067, are slim to none.
Now in the process of losing the Right to Free (speech) Expression, and having lost the Common-law Right to keep and bear arms, as a guarantor that individual rights will be honoured. It will take a rising of the commoners, electorally or upon impending social/economic collapse, for there to be a recognizable Canada, one to celebrate on it’s 200th birthday.
Free Saskaberta ! Live free or die!
This is some fairytale history right here. Until about 10 years ago if that, conservatives were all about ‘judicial restraint’ ie a totally synthetic judicial doctrine that has absolutely nothing to do with the way the US republic was setup and is totally anathema to keeping government in check. The near-appointment of Borke was the apotheosis of this awful anti-constitution doctrine. Thank God he got shot down, what a malignant bastard.
Further, conservatives in general have little respect for the parts of the US constitution that don’t appeal to them. In the ’60s roughly speaking they liked public decency laws that ran afoul of the 1A. More recently they back spying that contravenes the 4A. And all throughout they back drug prohibition and immigration controls that aren’t backed by any A. At least the alcohol prohibitionists actually amended the constitution.
If you’re going to tell lies about Robert Bork, at least learn to spell his name.
Judicial restraint is the idea that the people are sovereign and exercise that sovereignty through their elected representatives—a right the judiciary have no right to take away.
Judges should only strike down legislation that is obviously unconstitutional, and even then should think twice about doing so, when striking down the law would be contrary to the will of the overwhelming majority of the people.
Constitutions are made for nations, not nations for constitutions, and constititions can be changed. The right to change the constitution belongs to the people, not the judiciary.
The American people were never consulted on whether they thought it was a good idea to give US citizenship to any pup whelped by a bitch who happened to be on US soil at the time, against the will of the American people—just for example. The judges dreamed that up themselves.
(Honestly giving freedmem US and not Liberian citizenship was itself a blunder, but that’s another story.)
“Judges should only strike down legislation that is obviously unconstitutional, and even then should think twice about doing so, when striking down the law would be contrary to the will of the overwhelming majority of the people.”
Again: that is wholly incompatible with a republic that values individual liberty. ‘Judicial restraint’ and ‘respecting the will of “The People”‘ are why we have Obamacare.
Agreed again.
Liberty can only truly prevail if laws are for individuals which shall not be skirted for collective “benefit.”
That is antithetical to the true blue and beautiful liberalism of JSM and Murray Rothbard.
Such necessitation, within extraordinary circumstances, must be temporary with an exit plan as the crisis passes.
This is a far better fusion with conservatism than with socialism, aka progressivism, aka velvet (for now) Marxism.
What do we need legislatures when we can just have life time judges that can forsee the will of the people?
Actually, just one leader would be sufficient, and administratively efficient.
One leader, one vision, one path. Forward, of course.
( Irredeemables would be deplored, at minimum, if not enemys of progress, bitterly clinging to their superseded “constitutions”.)