by Lady Liberty
11/25/2003

When I attended the 2003 Freedom Summit , I fully expected that I would learn something. In fact, I told other attendees that my web site's  mission was to educate and inspire others, but that I was at the Freedom Summit to get a little education for myself. What I couldn't have known was just how much those two days in Phoenix would change my life. I alluded to that in an earlier column that talked about the Summit and my experiences there in general; now, as promised, the specifics of the incident that literally changed the foundations of what I thought I knew.

I have always said that there's nothing wrong with this country that going back to the Constitution couldn't fix. It has long been my contention that, though liberals insist the Constitution is a "living" document intended to "evolve with the times," the Founding Fathers wrote what they meant and meant what they wrote. It turns out I was kind of right, but completely wrong.

On Day Two of the Freedom Summit, one of the featured speakers was well-known pro-freedom author, Boston T. Party. Having long been an admirer of his, I couldn't wait to hear his speech. But in his opening remarks, Boston said that he was tired of those "whiners" who kept saying, "I just wanna go back to the Consti-tooooooo-shun!" Well, since I'm one of them, I was just a little offended by that remark. But what he said next was so shocking that it literally suspended time between one breath and the next. "Folks, we're living under the Constitution right now!" I sat there with my mouth open, considering dozens of things I might say to refute his assertion, and that's when it struck me with the force of a lightning bolt: Boston is right.

Of course, I'm well aware of the fact that some verbiage in the Constitution was deliberately left somewhat vague. I've always considered that to be a hallmark of the Founders' foresight. For example, the Constitution frequently uses such terms as "general welfare" and "public safety." In that manner, many things that didn't even exist when the Founders wrote the Constitution could also be legislated, regulated, or otherwise controlled by the Federal government (environmental laws immediately come to mind). What I didn't previously understand was that these clauses, while indeed deliberate, really provided for the literally unfettered expansion and power of the Federal government.

Such clauses shouldn't make much of a difference because of the so-called "balance of power" of the three branches of government. Unfortunately, that idea is also a skewed one. In his book "Hologram of Liberty" (see also our book review ), Boston T. Party points out that the three branches of government are all branches of the same federal family. More importantly, the Supreme Court is Constitutionally charged with the actual interpretation of the Constitution and, once a ruling is made, there is no possible appeal. In other words, the federal government itself decides what it can and cannot do, and when that decision is made, no check or balance exists to mitigate or overturn it whether it's a good decision or a bad one.

Most painful of all is to realize that the Constitution was written with the full expectation that it would evolve into what it's become today. A large federal government, abuse of power, high taxes, infringement of civil rights, and the helplessness of citizens or states to change any of those things were anticipated by those who were against the Constitution when it was originally presented for ratification. Most of the states were happy with the existing Articles of Confederation, and had to be convinced the Constitution was a good idea. They feared they'd lose their autonomy of rule, and many newly-minted Americans were afraid for the loss of the civil rights they'd fought the Revolutionary War to restore. Enter the men who wrote the famous Federalist Papers (later revealed to be Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay), published solely in an attempt to assuage those very concerns. They eventually won their argument, though it was a very close call and they were forced to promise the incorporation of a Bill of Rights before getting a favorable vote in some states.

Thomas Jefferson was, unfortunately for all of us, out of the country at the time all of this was going on. On his return, he spoke out somewhat bitterly about the new Constitution, and expressed arguments that echoed those of the states and the people. Even James Madison, the so-called Father of the Constitution, eventually saw the writing on the wall and repudiated some of what he'd helped craft. Alexander Hamilton, a real power behind the Constitution, knew what he was doing even as he did it for himself and some wealthy cronies. To be fair, he genuinely believed in his cause. He knew his plans probably couldn't come to fruition in his own lifetime. His legacy, however, may have gone even beyond his own intent.

Today, we live under the USA PATRIOT Act. We've seen the First Amendment eroded by hate crimes legislation, censorship in public schools and libraries, and investigations of people based solely on religions or clubs to which they belong. The Second Amendment has been grievously watered down with permits required for the carrying of firearms and various types of weapons forbidden or tightly controlled. The Fourth Amendment is all but dead and gone with "sneak and peek" searches becoming commonplace, "no knock" warrants served almost as often as the legitimate kind, roadblocks a typical law enforcement technique, and seizures literally out of control. The Fifth Amendment is under broad attack utilizing such techniques as sweeping arrests and coerced confessions. Even the Sixth Amendment has become a distant memory for any American citizen accused in the War on Terrorism. And the Tenth Amendment, the one that guarantees States' rights? Well, the Tenth never really existed as anything more than words on paper to begin with.

Supreme Court decisions have upheld censorship on the grounds of public safety (for "the children"). The High Court has refused to even hear many firearms cases, but most lower courts have upheld various and sundry federal anti-gun laws because the Constitution says the feds can regulate interstate commerce. Roadblocks are Constitutional. We know that because the Supreme Court has, on several occasions, said so. The Supreme Court is hearing a case involving informational roadblocks this session, and it is also considering another matter that will determine the Constitutionality of confessions made under certain circumstances. This news would be much more encouraging if not for the history of rulings the Court has already made that certain clearly unconstitutional laws are, indeed, perfectly Constitutional according to their interpretation. Unfortunately for all of us, Supreme Court interpretation is something that is, once again, specified under the Constitution itself.

After years of lamenting the state of affairs under US law and wishing for a return to the Constitution, I realize that my wish was actually granted long ago. There's no need to hope for a Constitutional government or a Constitutional set of laws. That's exactly what got us into this mess in the first place, and exactly how we're living right now. I have a new hope now, and that is this: I want to return to the Constitution as it was presented. All of the worries people had were calmed by claims that I'd like to see borne out. The fears state governments had were put to rest by promises that I'd like to see kept. The Constitution remains a great idea. But its actual implementation has proved sorely lacking.

In his book "Hologram of Liberty", Boston T. Party puts forth some ideas of what we, individually and collectively, might do to make some inroads back toward freedom. But even before some of those measures can be undertaken, more of us have to come to the same painful realization that I did during the Freedom Summit. Changing a long held and much-loved belief isn't easy. But the facts aren't altered by wishing they'd go away, and they genuinely do lead to the conclusion Boston claims and I've regretfully accepted.

Do a little research. Reconsider what you thought you knew. The one ray of hope here is that pain - not to mention a sense of betrayal - can prove to be one hell of a motivator, and motivated people in groups can wreak substantive change. Let's all hope and work together for another American Revolution to shed not blood, but misconceptions, and to result not in something new, but in something we wrongly thought we already had.

Lady Liberty is a pro-freedom activist currently residing in the Midwest. More of her writings and other political and educational information is available on her web site, Lady Liberty's Constitution Clearing House [http://www.ladylibrty.com]. E-mail Lady Liberty at ladylibrty@ladylibrty.com..

Lady Liberty
March 11, 2003