Damn Right I'm A Libertarian

How can these Constitutional Experts support theupon gender?"
unconstitutional War on Drugs (remember, Prohibition?Incidently, Utah was the second territory in the U.S. to
You need a Constitutional Amendment to makegrant women suffrage in 1870, under the impression
prohibition the law of the land and last I checked, wethat, if given the right to vote, that Utah women would
never ratified an Amendment to prohibit drugs). As thevote to make polygamy illegal. However, in 1887 the
march toward November 2nd, 2010 continues, it reallywomen of Utah were disenfranchised by the United
turns my stomach to see more and more politicalStates Congress under the Edmunds—Tucker
rhetoric where candidates are now claiming to beAct when Utah women exercised their right to votes
MORE "constitutional" than their opponent. Forin favor of polygamy. Women's suffrage in Utah was
example, during the primaries in Utah's U.S. Senaterestored a few years later when Utah's constitution
race, both candidates Mike Lee and Tim Bridgewaterrestored woman's right to vote since the original U.S
laid claim to the Constitution as their guide. PleaseConstitution didn't offer this right until the passage of
explain how EITHER of these guys call themselvesthe 19th Amendment).
fans of the Constitution yet oppose birthrightIn the sense that there are two main political parties in
citizenship?the United States, broadly speaking, there are two
And where in the Constitution does it talk about Socialmain types of "Constitutionalists"; those that subscribe
Security? But constitutional "expert" Mike Lee offersto "Originalism" and those that believe in a "Living
the unconstitutional solution of simply raising theConstitution". The funny thing is that there has been a
retirement age but isn't that a bit like re-arranging theterm being thrown around, "strict Constitutionalist", that I
deck chairs on the Titanic? You don't have to tweakbelieve means being an "Originalist" with regards to
already doomed institutions. For example, as aninterpreting the Constitution. The term "strict
entrepreneur, I helped to found the leading consultingconstitutionalist" is likely a mutation of the term "strict
firm in the Reverse Mortgage space to help createconstructionist", a term with too many interpretations to
market-based solutions to the problem of seniordigress into for the purposes of this essay.
funding.Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer would fall into
How can these Constitutional Experts support thethe Living Constitution camp while Justice Antonin
unconstitutional War on Drugs (remember, Prohibition?Scalia would be considered an Originalist. Living
You need a Constitutional Amendment to makeConstitution folks hold that the Constitution's boundaries
prohibition the law of the land and last I checked, weare plastic and should serve the needs of society as it
never ratified an Amendment to prohibit drugs).evolves. This means that the Constitution's meaning
And interesting Constitutional aside for Utahns, thecan shift to include both of Isiah Berlin's concepts of
Twenty-first Amendment, which ended prohibition, wasnegative and positive liberty. "Living Constitution" judges
ratified when Utah became the state to cast theare often perjoratively called "Activist judges" by their
deciding 36th vote to ratify the Twenty-firstopposition. Ultimately the Living Document interpretation
Amendment on December 5, 1933. Utah's subsequentof the Constitution whither when it is understood that
infamous and unusual liquor laws were a direct result"If the constitution can mean anything, then the
of its decisive vote to end the government enforcedconstitution means nothing".
prohibition of alcohol.Originalist judges try try to interpret the Constitution as
Recently, a headline at the satirical Onion website read:the Founders would have. As Justice Scalia said in a
Area Man Passionate Defender Of What He Imaginesrecent 60 Minutes interview:
Constitution To Be. I call these types "A La Carte    "...it isn't the mindset. It's what did the words mean
Constitutionalists". You know the type, they pick andto the people who ratified the Bill of Rights or who
choose the parts of the Constitution they like andratified the Constitution,"
disregard the rest. Their piecemeal approach may beThis is tantamount to saying that he and other
truly deceitful or merely done for expediency's sake"Originalist" have some sort of postcognitive psychic
(e.g., being a "constitutionalist" makes a greatability to channel the Founding Fathers and somehow
sound-byte) but either way it is wrong.know what they meant (maybe they all wear
    "[i]t is true that, in the United States, at least, webracelets that read "WWFFD"). Understanding the
have a constitution that imposes strict limits on somemeaning of words across time is a difficult enough
powers of government. But, as we have discovered intask for trained etymologists and historians but I think it
the past century, no constitution can interpret oris fair to say that it is really impossible to know how
enforce itself; it must be interpreted by men. And if thethe Founders would think about technology like
ultimate power to interpret a constitution is given to thestem-cell research, nuclear missiles, or the internet until
government’s own Supreme Court, then thesomeone invents a time-machine. I mean how does
inevitable tendency is for the Court to continue toone really determine if someone knows better than
place its imprimatur on ever-broader powers for itsother what the words of the Founders mean in
own government. Furthermore, the highly toutedsituations that the Founders could have never
“checks and balances” and “separation ofimagined?
powers” in the American government are flimsyThe other logical flaw with Originalism is the fact that
indeed, since in the final analysis all of these divisionsthe Ninth Amendment does establish a rule of
are part of the same government and are governedconstitutional interpretation since it clearly protects
by the same set of rulers." - Murray Rothbardthose rights which the founders had not thought to list
While I do think a move back toward our Constitutionexplicitly:
and toward truly limited-government of the Founding    "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain
Fathers is an important goal, I don't like to call myself arights shall not be construed to deny or disparage
"constitutionalist" because it really isn't a very clearothers retained by the people."
term. I mean, Barack Obama is a Constitutional ScholarTerms have meaning (which ultimately ends up how
too but we couldn't be further apart with regards tothey are used in language). The problem is that the
policy. Now while I favor constitutional governmentlanguage of politics is sometimes sloppy and applied
there are things about the U.S. Constitution that I don'twith very little intension. This allows words like "Liberal"
like, for example the 16th Amendment. Often when Ito be changed to eventually mean their exact
suggest to self-described Constitutionalists that theyopposite. Unfortunately, the term liberal is now largely
must then favor the institution of the IRS they oftensynonymous with 'progressive' and when Hayek calls
counter by saying with a smug smile, "No, I favor thehimself a classical liberal, not a conservative, too few
original Constitution".people understand the true meaning he wanted to
My response then usually sounds something like:convey. Likewise, "conservative" now is generally used
    "oh so you support the 3/5th Clause whichto convey neo-conservative policies, not
effectively says that each slave is equivalent to 3/5thpaleo-conservative ones. So now, through misuse of
of a free man when apportioning how manyterms the people are offered a Morton's Fork of big
Representatives each state received (also in thegovernment Social Democrats and big government
Electoral College)?"orConservative Republicans.
    "oh so you don't support the right of women toKind regards,
vote and feel that the 19th Amendment which prohibitsJake Shannon
the state from denying people the right to vote basedLibertarian for U.S.