The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewIlana Mercer Archive
Whodunit? Who “Meddled” with “Our Democracy”?
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

Republicans have revealed that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) treats Americans not as citizens, but as subjects to spy on. I’d expect nothing less from a Court strengthened by George W. Bush and his Republicans.

But, what do you know? Following Barack Obama’s lead, President Donald Trump and his Republicans have renewed FISA Section 702, which, in fact, has facilitated the usurpations the same representatives are currently denouncing.

Also in contravention of a quaint constitutional relic called the Fourth Amendment is Special Counsel Robert Mueller. Mueller has taken possession of “many tens of thousands of emails from President Donald Trump’s transition team.” There is no limit, seemingly, to the power of the special counsel.

Look, we’re living in a post-Constitutional America. Complaints about the damage done to our “democracy” by outsiders are worse than silly. Such damage pales compared to what we Americans have done to a compact rooted in the consent of the governed and the drastically limited and delimited powers of those who govern.

In other words, a republic. Ours was never a country conceived as a democracy.

To arrive at a democracy, we Americans destroyed a republic.

The destruction is on display daily.

Pray tell where-oh-where in the US Constitution does it say that anyone crossing over into the US may demand and get an abortion? But apparently, this is settled law—a universally upheld right, irrespective of whose property and territory it impinges.

The only aspect our clodhopper media—left and right—deign to debate in such abortion-tourism cases is the interloper’s global reproductive rights. So, if abortion is a service Americans must render to the world, why not the right to a colonoscopy or a facelift?

Cannabis: The reason it’s notin the Constitution is because letting states and individuals decide is in the Constitution. That thing of beauty is called the Tenth Amendment:

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.”

That’s right. In American federalism, the rights of the individual were meant to be secured through strict limits imposed on the power of the central government by a Bill of Rights and the division of authority between autonomous states and a federal government. Yet on cannabis, the meager constitutional devolution of power away from the Federales and to states and individuals Republicans have reversed. Some are even prattling about a constitutional cannabis amendment, as if there’s a need for further “constitutional” centralization of authority.

After 230 years of just such “constitutional” consolidation, it’s safe to say that the original Constitution is a dead letter; that the natural- and common law traditions, once lodestars for lawmakers, have been buried under the rubble of legislation and statute that would fill an entire building floor. However much one shovels the muck of lawmaking aside, natural justice and the Founders’ original intent remain buried too deep to exhume.

ORDER IT NOW

Consider: America’s Constitution makers bequeathed a central government of delegated and enumerated powers. The Constitution gives Congress only some eighteen specific legislative powers. Nowhere among these powers is Social Security, civil rights (predicated as they are on grotesque violations of property rights), Medicare, Medicaid, and the elaborate public works sprung from the General Welfare and Interstate Commerce Clauses.

The welfare clause stipulates that “Congress will have the power … to provide for the general welfare.” And even though the general clause is followed by a detailed enumeration of the limited powers so delegated; our overlords, over decades of dirigisme, have taken Article I, Section 8 to mean that government can pick The People’s pockets for any perceivable purpose and project. Witness a judiciary of scurrilous statists that had even found in the Constitution a mandate to compel commerce by forcing individual Americans to purchase health insurance on pains of a fine, an act of force President Trump has mercifully repealed.

So you see, Rachel Maddow, it’s not the Republicans who’ve ruined our system. Sean Hannity, it’s not the Democrats. It’s not even “the Russians.”

At root, they all did. It happened over time and is a fait accompli. The reality today is that there’s simply no warrant in the Constitution for most of what the Federal Frankenstein does.

Ilana Mercer has been writing a weekly, paleolibertarian column since 1999. She is the author of “The Trump Revolution: The Donald’s Creative Destruction Deconstructed (June, 2016) & “Into the Cannibal’s Pot: Lessons for America From Post-Apartheid South Africa (2011). She’s on Twitter, Facebook,Gab & YouTube.

 
• Category: Ideology • Tags: Donald Trump, Government Surveillance 
Hide 9 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. Thank you. If it was not dead they would not have to call it the living document.

  2. anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    A few more observations, with which Ms. Mercer should agree:

    The invertebrate Congress has been a weak link in the Constitutional system, deferring in the last 50 years to the judiciary in matters of domestic policy and to the executive in matters of foreign policy, most obviously war.

    Turning the Constitution into a mystical, living document speaking through robed priests has served to trash it.

    The loss of the States’ authority was gradual, but amending the Constitution to have voters directly elect senators looks in retrospect like a key step in the national government’s arrogation of authority.

    The world’s gaudiest whorehouse is also wide open for business with foreign interests. And why not? If Uncle Sam is trying to run the world, then shouldn’t everyone in the Empire be allowed to participate in the democracy?

  3. AnalogMan says:

    Same ones who meddled in South Africa. Ilana’s daddy, for one.

  4. “…treats Americans not as citizens, but as subjects to spy on.”

    To be correct, the US government considers its subjects to be chattels … property. For my part, the US is my crazy ex-girlfriend, who always wants to know where I’m going, who I’m seeing, what I’m doing, and who annually wants a full accounting of every Dollar, Pound, Euro and ounce I earn, spend or hold.

  5. Social engineers like to call the Constitution a living document, so that they can treat it as a dead letter.

  6. Mercer says:
    Republicans have revealed that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) treats Americans not as citizens, but as subjects to spy on. .. President Donald Trump and his Republicans have renewed FISA Section 702, which, in fact, has facilitated the usurpations the same representatives are currently denouncing.

    If this is so as you say, it is indeed disturbing. Many hail Trump as an almost messianic ‘redeemer’ figure. How could he countenance these things being done to good Amuricans?

    .
    Look, we’re living in a post-Constitutional America. Complaints about the damage done to our “democracy” by outsiders are worse than silly. Such damage pales compared to what we Americans have done to a compact rooted in the consent of the governed and the drastically limited and delimited powers of those who govern.

    Good point, but it will most likely be rejected by the simplistic legions who insist that “evil” outsiders (cue that old standby villain- that wandering alien..) “must be” the cause.

    .
    In other words, a republic. Ours was never a country conceived as a democracy. To arrive at a democracy, we Americans destroyed a republic.

    ———————————————-

    Not necessarily. While the Republican form in theory was designed with a view towards greater deliberation that would quell the wild passions of hasty mass action, it is still a democratic form in many aspects.

    .
    Pray tell where-oh-where in the US Constitution does it say that anyone crossing over into the US may demand and get an abortion? But apparently, this is settled law—a universally upheld right, irrespective of whose property and territory it impinges.

    But this has little to do with the difference between “Republics” versus “democracies,” and cross-border abortion on demand is not settled law, nor a universally upheld right. No federal court has ever declared that unlawfully-present aliens with no substantial ties to this country have a constitutional right to abortion on demand, nor has any controlling national law been passed to this effect.

    .
    The only aspect our clodhopper media—left and right—deign to debate in such abortion-tourism cases is the interloper’s global reproductive rights. So, if abortion is a service Americans must render to the world, why not the right to a colonoscopy or a facelift?

    Not really. There is plenty of media debate in opposition to “cross border” abortion.

    .
    In American federalism, the rights of the individual were meant to be secured through strict limits imposed on the power of the central government by a Bill of Rights and the division of authority between autonomous states and a federal government. Yet on cannabis, the meager constitutional devolution of power away from the Federales and to states and individuals Republicans have reversed. Some are even prattling about a constitutional cannabis amendment, as if there’s a need for further “constitutional” centralization of authority.

    But here’s the thing. State governments, supposedly “closer to the people” can be just as oppressive, or more so than the federal hegemon. Many “civil liberties” cases have arisen precisely because it is state and local regimes oppressing the rights of the individual. Some local regimes for example have been making a nice profit with asset seizures, extracting substantial administrative costs and legal fees even when the individuals they harass are innocent. In several cases, people must pay the local bureaucrats and bully boys to get their own property back. Federal courts have been absolutely right in putting a stop to such abuses. But the victims had to appeal to a higher level before anything was done. The politicians nd bureaucrats at the local and state levels didn’t give a damn.

    .
    After 230 years of just such “constitutional” consolidation, it’s safe to say that the original Constitution is a dead letter; that the natural- and common law traditions, once lodestars for lawmakers, have been buried under the rubble of legislation and statute that would fill an entire building floor. However much one shovels the muck of lawmaking aside, natural justice and the Founders’ original intent remain buried too deep to exhume.

    Keep in mind that “natural law” and “original intent” are not necessarily self-evident in many cases. It is a complex field with numerous heavyweight jurists and scholars on multiple sides of the issues. “Natural justice” too has been often suppressed by state and local regimes.

    .
    Consider: America’s Constitution makers bequeathed a central government of delegated and enumerated powers. The Constitution gives Congress only some eighteen specific legislative powers. Nowhere among these powers is Social Security, civil rights (predicated as they are on grotesque violations of property rights), Medicare, Medicaid, and the elaborate public works sprung from the General Welfare and Interstate Commerce Clauses.

    Sure. There is no mandate for massive federal spending on interstate highways or hospitals for example, or Social Security. But many conservatives have had no problem accepting these, and have indeed expanded and embraced many of the above. Charles Murray in “Losing Ground” advocated a vast rollback in many federal programs- quote:

    “completely scrapping the entire federal welfare and income-support structure for working aged persons, including AFDC, Medicaid, Food Stamps, Unemployment Insurance, Worker’s Compensaion, subsidized housing, disability insurance and the rest.” (Murray, Losing Ground, p 227-228).

    While he later backtracked to generously posit some aid, such as food aid to hungry children, or a small level of unemployment insurance, most of what he advocates would be, and has been rejected by a majority of today’s conservatives, and indeed by most Americans. And the notion that the federal government should “only confine itself” to the 18 things listed is highly debatable. Library shelves and court briefs and tons on ink by legal scholars dispute that interpretation ad infinitum. Even more ironic are the legions using a network developed due to “evil” federal spending- the Internet- to rail against the same “evil” federal spending that made the vehicle of their electronic rants possible.

    .
    The reality today is that there’s simply no warrant in the Constitution for most of what the Federal Frankenstein does.

    True in part, but keep in mind that state and local regimes can be just as intrusive and oppressive as any federal activity.

    .
    So you see, Rachel Maddow, it’s not the Republicans who’ve ruined our system. Sean Hannity, it’s not the Democrats. It’s not even “the Russians.” At root, they all did. It happened over time and is a fait accompli.

    At least you are candid enough and visionary enough to see the big picture, rather than render the standard spiel about how “the liberals” or “the Jews” or (add villain of choice) did it. This is certainly a refreshing contrast to the simplistic narratives that so easily dominate this area.

    • Replies: @Ilyana_Rozumova
  7. @EnriiiqueCardovaa

    After reading all this I do think you should be the president.

  8. lol. maybe Putin for President!

  9. “Republicans have revealed that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) treats Americans not as citizens, but as subjects to spy on. I’d expect nothing less from a Court created and perpetuated by George W. Bush and his Republicans”

    You blew the article in the 1st paragraph Llana. The FISA court was created in the seventies, ostensibly as a means of correcting the runaway violations of civil liberties due to the Church committee investigating our CIA (primarily.) Yeah, so that didn’t work out so well. In any case amateurs like yourself shouldn’t pontificate on matters of American constitutional law, but being a bit in sympathy with your premise, and a one time adjunct professor on the subject, allow me to show you how it’s done:

    https://ronaldthomaswest.com/2013/08/20/the-anti-federalist-urban-legend/

    ^ as addendum to the preceding, I would note there has not been a single Justice of the Supreme Court has stood up and challenged the right of the Chief Justice to appoint judges to a court that essentially cancels the Constitutions Bill of Rights

Current Commenter
says:

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Ilana Mercer Comments via RSS
PastClassics
What Was John McCain's True Wartime Record in Vietnam?
Hundreds of POWs may have been left to die in Vietnam, abandoned by their government—and our media.
Are elite university admissions based on meritocracy and diversity as claimed?
The evidence is clear — but often ignored
The “war hero” candidate buried information about POWs left behind in Vietnam.