is it ever acceptable for the US government to knowingly violate the constitution?

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed
prompted by walter karp's "the america that was free and is now dead," a brilliant essay on woodrow wilson's various attacks on liberty during WWI, and especially this paragraph:

By the time Wilson reached Paris in December 1918, political liberty had been snuffed out in America. "One by one the right of freedom of speech, the right of assembly, the right to petition, the right to protection against unreasonable searches and seizures, the right against arbitrary arrest, the right to fair trial . . . the principle that guilt is personal, the principle that punishment should bear some proportion to the offense, had been sacrificed and ignored." So an eminent Harvard professor of law, Zechariah Chafee, reported in 1920. The war served merely as pretext. Of that there can be little doubt. In a searing civil conflict that threatened the very survival of the republic, Americans, under Lincoln, enjoyed every liberty that could possibly be spared. In a war safely fought three thousand miles from our shores, Americans, under Wilson, lost every liberty they could possibly be deprived of.

haha i can hear every libertarian in america jumping on those last couple sentences, since the revisionist line on lincoln is that he was a ruthless dictator who ran roughshod over the constitution - suspended habeas corpus, imprisoned newspaper editors, et al - to achieve his sole goal of oppressing the southern states (slavery not being an issue, as revisionist-lincoln didn't care about it and revisionist-civil war didn't have anything to do with it). but i can't imagine anyone but the most steadfast states'-rights extremist arguing that lincoln's actions hurt the constitution - it wasn't an unnecessary war like iraq (or WWI), it was, as karp says, something "that threatened the very survival of the republic." and if anything the first successful years of reconstruction led to a far stronger and more inclusive nation than we'd ever had before (or would have, if reconstruction's end in 1876 didn't sabotage a lot of what had been done). but other than that, i can't think of many times where a president violated the constitution for anything other than purely nasty, self-serving ends.

J.D. (Justyn Dillingham), Tuesday, 7 February 2006 01:29 (nineteen years ago)

note to founders: couldn't you have called it something easier to spell than "constitution"? i bet even jefferson occasionally put in an extra "tit" now and then.

J.D. (Justyn Dillingham), Tuesday, 7 February 2006 01:30 (nineteen years ago)

It would be acceptable for the Congress of the United States to pass a law establishing a religion, provided it were done on an April Fools' Day and they immediately rescinded it, while everyone laughed uproariously at the priceless look on George W. Bush's face.

Aimless (Aimless), Tuesday, 7 February 2006 01:45 (nineteen years ago)

how many of you are there exactly?

Sororah T Massacre (blueski), Tuesday, 7 February 2006 12:41 (nineteen years ago)

Yeah. Its called Amending it.

Pete (Pete), Tuesday, 7 February 2006 12:56 (nineteen years ago)

when they amend the Constitution does it mean some bits no longer make sense? ala removing comments on threads so that other people's comments are out of context? that would be funny.

Sororah T Massacre (blueski), Tuesday, 7 February 2006 13:01 (nineteen years ago)

Yes, what did they do about repealing Prohibition? Is it THOU SHALT NOT DRINK followed by "Whoops, we mean, of course you can drink, provided you are of age and not on Sundays" or did they just take out the amendment that said you can't drink?

She's In Parties (kate), Tuesday, 7 February 2006 13:03 (nineteen years ago)

when they amend the Constitution does it mean some bits no longer make sense? ala removing comments on threads so that other people's comments are out of context? that would be funny.

There should be an Excelsior section in the Constitution..

...Checks and balances
-- inventordude357 (jefferst@usa.gov), February 7th, 1774 8:03 AM

Dave will do (dave225.3), Tuesday, 7 February 2006 13:17 (nineteen years ago)

...or did they just take out the amendment that said you can't drink?

you can't "take anything out" of the constitution, you can only amend it. so the amendment was amended, natch.

hstencil (hstencil), Tuesday, 7 February 2006 17:02 (nineteen years ago)

What was the SCOTUS decision with the memorable phrase about the constitution not being a suicide pact?

M. White (Miguelito), Tuesday, 7 February 2006 17:09 (nineteen years ago)

not sure, that had to be a scalia phrasin' tho, right?

hstencil (hstencil), Tuesday, 7 February 2006 17:10 (nineteen years ago)

J.D., I'm so glad you found that Walter Karp: it's one of the great, forgotten works of history and poli sci published in the last 30 years. McKinley and Wilson stand revealed as the quasi-despots they always denied they were.

Alfred, Lord Sotosyn (Alfred Soto), Tuesday, 7 February 2006 17:11 (nineteen years ago)

No, hstencil, not Scalia.

http://www.slate.com/id/2060342

M. White (Miguelito), Tuesday, 7 February 2006 17:17 (nineteen years ago)

oh ok, well the idea of scalia and clarence thomas in a forbidden-love-style suicide pact clouded my thinking.

hstencil (hstencil), Tuesday, 7 February 2006 17:19 (nineteen years ago)

Abe Lincoln vs habeas corpus? never made my mind up on that.

Dr Morbius (Dr Morbius), Tuesday, 7 February 2006 18:39 (nineteen years ago)

Just last week, reading some of Lincoln's collected speeches and letters, I noticed that while Lincoln did suspend habeas corpus his administration was pretty clear in defining the terms under which a citizen could be imprisoned. Having officially declared a "rebellion" by the Southern states had taken place, Lincoln then went after seditious speech that could aid and abet the rebels.

Wilson, meanwhile, was a real political animal, remarkably priggish, who thought nothing of sending enemies to jai (and even theoretical enemies, like Eugene V. Debs, who would have served all 20 yrs of his prison term had not Warren Harding pardoned him).

Alfred, Lord Sotosyn (Alfred Soto), Tuesday, 7 February 2006 18:54 (nineteen years ago)

The early 20's make the McCarthy era look like a fuckin' picnic.

M. White (Miguelito), Tuesday, 7 February 2006 19:05 (nineteen years ago)

the real answer is "No, of course not" (but really yes)

ryan (ryan), Tuesday, 7 February 2006 19:30 (nineteen years ago)


You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.