Hi Christine:
Terrence is correct about the Constitution's being circumvented or flagrantly disobeyed. I could go on at length about this, but I'll try just to give a few examples. (Understand that I may or may not agree that the result of the constitutional bash is good for the Republic at large.)
1. The tenth amendment says that if the Constitution does not give the federal government a certain power, and if it does not specifically prohibit it to the states, than that power is reserved to the states or the people.
Example: There is nothing in the constitution about speed limits (how could there be?) and nothing to prohibit the states setting their speed limits. So the Federal decree about the 55 mile per hour speed limit (at the time of the oil embargo) was not constitutional. Maybe a frivolous example, but remember, we are talking about principle here.
2. The fifth amendment has a lot in it, and we all know that "taking the fifth" (as about sixty of our president's buddies have done recently) preserves one's constitutional right against self-incrimination. But it also states: "...nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy ..."
Tell that to Mr. Furman, who was acquited(rightly or wrongly) by a jury of his peers for the beating of his prisoner, Rodney King, only to be tried again in a Federal Court. The original verdict was not politically acceptable to the government. Now the opposite happened in the case of O.J. Simpson who was freed after a very unpopular verdict of innocence, but despite popular uproar, no double jeopardy was applied. So the constitution worked for Mr. Simpson, guilty or not, but did not work for Mr. Furman, guilty or not. The point is that the constitution was bent for political purposes.
3. Article I, section 9, paragraph 3: No ... ex post facto law shall be passed. In other words, if you do something today, congress cannot pass a law in the future which makes you responsible for what you did before the law was passed.
Now Mr. Clinton (sorry to keep picking on him), passed a tax increase (affecting the upper income citizens) which was retroactive to six months or so before the law was passed. In other words those people paid their taxes as required by law for the first half of the year, then they were told that the rules had changed halfway through the game. There was no public outcry about this because it only affected a hated minority, "the rich", but remember that no one complained about Hitler's destruction of the Jews' constitutional rights either, because they were also a generally disliked minority. So the politicians can get away with thwarting the constitution depending upon where the effects fall.
4. Back to the fifth amendment: It also states: " ...nor shall any person ... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;" How about the IRS, who may, without due process of law, freeze your bank account, effectively put you out of business, confiscate your home, etc if you cannot prove (to their satisfaction) that you are innocent of the accusations they make against you? Or how about the drug laws which permit your boat, car or home to be "forfeited" if drugs are found there, whether or not you, the owner, are guilty of drug trafficking or use. Just finding the substance there is enough to confiscate your property. The property is considered "guilty" and therefore no trial is necessary. This actually happened to a widow whose home was sold out from under her because her son, completely unknown to her, was selling drugs from his room.
I will stop now. We must recognize that the government is powerful enough to do what they want to do regardless of the constitution, especially when the population lets them get away with it. Again, many of the things they do in skirting the constitution may be worthy or even laudable for society as a whole, but the principle of constitutional violation is evident in the above instances. I have not touched on the other means of constitutional evasion, which is for governmental agencies to make "regulations" which have the force of law despite not having been passed into law. Many innocent people or companies knuckle under to these unconstitutional rules because under them they may be sued in court, and with the bottomless resources of the government, who can hope to mount a defense at his own expense?
Sorry this post is so long, but as you predicted, you may regret bringing this subject up <g>! Best wishes for Christmas!
Jack
|
