THE LIBERTARIAN ENTERPRISE
Number 146, November 5, 2001
The One Percent Solution
A Foolish War - Part Two: Time For a New Covenant
by Keith Shugarts
Special to TLE
With due respect to L. Neil Smith and the others who support the Bill of Rights and the Constitution, I must put forth the argument that inherent in both the Bill of Rights and the Constitution are the very tools for the destruction of freedom and liberty that we are bearing witness to these very dark days. It is the ability to interpret both the Bill of Rights and Constitution that threatens liberty and freedom. The evidence I put forth to support this argument arises from the prophetic words of the Anti-Federalists as they fought against implementation of the Constitution some 220 years ago, arises from the works of Trenchard and Gordon from their Cato's Letters, and from the fevered ferment of my own mind.
Attorney General John Ashcroft, the zealotic, pedantic, and strident little prick, stands before the microphone appearing more and more like a later day incarnation on Maximilien Robespierre speaking of the newly enacted terrorism legislation states that there is no reason to worry, that the Constitutional rights guaranteed all Americans were preserved. King-General George the Shrub cheering on the passing of the USA Patriot Act of 2001 says that rights have been preserved and that the "Constitutional rights of American's have been preserved." Both Attorney General Ashcroft and King-General George the Shrub believe themselves to be staunch defenders of their versions of liberty and freedom as put forth in their interpretation of the Bill of Rights and the Constitution. They have used both the Bill of Rights and the Constitution to subvert American's freedom and liberty as Aristocrotis wrote in Anti-Federalist #51 when he wanted to show the American public what would come to pass if the Constitution were approved when he writes. "Happy thy servants! Happy thy vassals! And happy thy slaves, which fit under the shade of thy omnipotent authority and behold the majesty! For such a state who would not part with the idea blessings of liberty? Who would not cheerfully resign the nominal advantages of freedom?"
The problem that I see with L. Neil Smith's and others ideas to more vigorously enforce the Bill of Rights and the Constitution is that it is already being done. However, it is being done by those who would interpret them differently - Bush and Ashcroft, Clinton and Reno, Alexander Hamilton, Abraham Lincoln, Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, and Lyndon Baines Johnson to name but a few. The problem is within the documents themselves.
The Anti-Federalists realized that the interpretability of the Constitution would cause problems for the preservation of freedom and liberty. Again I will quote Aristocrotis writing in Anti-Federalist #51 when he writes, "for the convention has so happily worded themselves that every part of this constitution either bears double meaning, or no means at all; and if any concessions are made to the people in one place, it is eventually cancelled in another - so that in fact his constitution is much better and gives more scope to the rulers than they durst safely take if there was no constitution at all."
Speaking on the intrusion of the State through the ability to lay and collect taxes, imposts, duties, and excises under the Constitution even before the imposition of an income tax, Brutus writes in Anti-Federalist #6," this power, exercised without limitations will introduce itself into every corner of the city, and the country - It will wait upon the ladies at the toilett, and will not leave them in any of their domestic concerns." Has this not also come to pass under those perceived protections of both the Constitution and Bill of Rights?
Brutus, still writing in Anti-Federalist #6, like Aristocrotis, warns of the broad interpretability of the Constitution siting the clause establishing justice, providing for the common defense when he writes, "Are these terms definite, and will they be understood in the same manner of opinion, what tends to be general welfare; and the Congress will be the only judges in the matter." Later in that same essay, Brutus gives more insight into ways the State would use the clauses to increase its power and sway over freedom and liberty stating, "the government would always say, their measures were designed and calculated to promote the public good, and there being no judge between them and the people, the rulers themselves must, and would always judge for themselves." The State uses the interpretability of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights not to expand upon the freedoms offered within but to restrict them and ultimately deny them.
How can these problems be solved merely with stricter enforcement of the Bill of Rights and the Constitution when it is by those very mechanisms that freedom and liberty are threatened? Will a Bill of Rights Party be able to stem the tide of government and stop the interpretations of both the Bill of Rights and Constitution? And if it is initially successful, what then of further generations that may not hold to such a strict interpretation of those hallowed documents? Where is the preservation of liberty and freedom when those who founded the party begin to die? The Libertarian Party, around only since 1971 has seen many fractures and dissolution of its ideals. Would not the same fate befall the Bill of Rights party?
I therefor humbly propose this solution. The solution would be to work towards the implementation and unanimous consent to accept the New Covenant, also known as the Covenant of Unanimous Consent. This document was written by L. Neil Smith himself and contained within his work The Gallatin Divergence. This solution I propose would have the effect of "laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness." Fatal flaws lay entwined around the very heart of the Constitution and Bill of Rights, fatal flaws that would be the death of liberty and freedom. It is time to work towards the enactment of a new covenant and allow the old one to die.
A Quick word to King George the Shrub, the King-General of the United States on declaring the terrorists evil-doers that I have taken from Trenchard and Gordon's Cato's Letters as they spoke on tyranny, "Nor can there be a more provoking, impudent, shocking, and blasphemous position, than to assert all this group of horrors, or the author of them, to be of God's appointment."