Saturday, February 18, 2012

Strict Constructionism envisions a Constitution 180 degrees away from how it originally was

Because history shapes our consciousness of it. Truth be told, according to "The Federalist Era" by John C. Miller, issued by Harper Torchbooks in 1960, the Federalists, the ones who wrote the Constitution, meant for the Constitution to give the Federal government sweeping powers and to limit those of the States. That's why they moved away from the Articles of the Confederacy. The tenth amendment, guaranteeing power to the States, was interpreted in a very narrow way, with the Federal government understood to possess most of the powers that potentially could be delegated to the States. What changed all of that was the election of Jefferson to the Presidency. With the Jeffersonian takeover, the understanding of the Constitution was flipped from Federal government centric to State centric. His election, as well as the subsequent decades of control of the Federal government by the group that would become the Democratic Party, was interpreted as a rejection of the classical Constitutional system by the people.

It's the Jeffersonian interpretation, construed in a conservative manner, that Strict Constructionism appeals to, not what the founders originally intended. The pious appeals of the Strict Constructionists to the Moses like wisdom of the Founders is mostly theatrical bunk, in that they've bought into the self serving myths surrounding the U.S. government and don't actually know the history of it all that well. They know the 'Patriotic History', but not the objective history.

No comments: