|
Jewish World Review / Sept. 25, 1998 /5 Tishrei, 5759
Walter Williams
Liberals and the constitution
CLINTON'S SCANDAL AND HIS POSSIBLE IMPEACHMENT have produced somewhat of a
metamorphosis among liberals in and out of Congress. They've become strict
constructionists of at least a sentence or two in the Constitution.
In trying to save Clinton's presidential hide, they're saying that the "treason, bribery, or
other high crimes and misdemeanors" language in Article II, Section 4 of the
Constitution has a very narrow and precise meaning. They warn us that the Framers of
the Constitution would be appalled if today's Americans deviated from the meaning they
had in mind and impeached a president over something as trivial as sex and lies.
I'm not sure liberals have any idea of what the Framers had in mind, much less any
respect for what they had in mind. One thing for sure is their sudden conversion to
strict construction of the "high crimes and misdemeanors" language of the Constitution
is nothing less than disingenuous manipulation.
The fact of business is that liberals have open contempt for the Constitution and rule of
law, except when it suits their purposes. Reps. Zoe Lofgren, D-Calif., and Barney
Frank, D-Mass., are leading proponents of the Framer-intent, strict constructionist
interpretation of the Constitution's impeachment language. But ask either one of them,
or their colleagues, whether they also espouse the Framer-intent strict construction of,
say, the Tenth Amendment, which reads, "The powers not delegated to the United
States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States
respectively, or to the people," and they'll hem and haw a bit, feigning constitutional
respect, but their answer will boil down to a big fat "No."
Lofgren, Frank and their liberal colleagues have contempt for Framer intent in most of
our Constitution. I say most, but not entirely. Liberals do call for a narrow, literal
interpretation of the First Amendment, which mandates that "Congress shall make no
law ... abridging freedom of speech, or of the press or of the right of the people to
peaceably assemble. ..."
Liberals support freedom of speech, the press and assembly because it's vital to their
agenda of persuasion and organization to restrict other liberties. They'll argue that our
Second Amendment rights to keep and bear arms or our Fifth Amendment rights
against the taking of property should be restricted and modified in order to promote the
public good in a society far more complex than that during the times of our Founders.
But they wouldn't apply that same reasoning to free speech, press and assembly
protections.
Try it for yourself. Ask a congressional or a news media liberal how the government
should regulate and control speech and the press in the public interest in today's
complex society. They'll concede to no government regulation and control whatsoever.
Liberal support for freedom of speech and the press is simply a temporary expedient.
Once they gain full control, freedom of speech and the press will be restricted, as have
our other freedoms. There's both worldwide and domestic evidence of this process.
The most leftist institutions in our country today are colleges and universities. The
1960s hippies are now college presidents, deans and professors. These ex-hippies are
the very people who've promoted and sanctioned campus speech codes that violate
free speech. They are also the people who turn a blind eye to campus thugs who shout
down speakers with whom they disagree and burn entire campus newspaper runs
when they publish views they deem offensive.
If there's a silver lining to Clinton's sex and lies scandal, it's the exposure of liberal
contempt for constitutional principles and rule of
9/17/98: Clinton and future presidents
9/11/98: Donate or sell organs
9/03/98: Common Sense vs. Experts
8/26/98: Mother Nature's unfairness
8/24/98: The pretense of superiority
8/13/98: Yours or mine?
8/05/98: I do my job well, so that means I can....
7/29/98: Education production