A Prescription for Conservative Inconsistency

THE ENTIRE U.S. CONSTITUTION MUST BE ADHERED TO, INCLUDING THE SECTION ON PRESIDENTIAL ELIGIBILITY

by Sally Vendée

(Apr. 9, 2010) — Now that Obamacare has passed, pundits write and politicians argue about its impact on our nation, its key provisions, implementation and enforcement details, and whether its many elements are in fact Constitutional.

One famous conservative writer, David Horowitz, editor of FrontPage magazine, on the night of Obamacare’s passage in a blog entry he called “Obamacare Bill: A Declaration of War,” lamented:

…The Democratic Party has in the course of the nine-month health care debate revealed itself to be an anti-democratic Party and an anti-liberty party…that has demonstrated its contempt for the Constitutional framework, for the democratic process, and for the expressed will of the American people. Its brazen contempt for the compact that holds the diverse factions of this country together has initiated a political war at home that will extend not only into the next elections but into the next generations that will be encumbered with the trillions in debt and oppressive government controls that the socialist majority in Congress has demonstrated that it is intent on inflicting on this country. The people of this nation are still sovereign, and their voice will be heard. Tonight’s vote was lost but it is not the end of the battle. It is the beginning.

Many readers may recall another Horowitz piece from last April he titled: “Get Over Your Obama Derangement Syndrome” which opened with: “My fellow right-wingers, calm down. The new president is not the antichrist, Stalin or even a radical.”

Horowitz wrote that the Dems’ “massive government giveaways” were bad, but didn’t make

…Obama a closet Mussolini, however deplorable the conservatives among us may regard it. Moreover, he’s already run into political resistance even within his own party. Charlie Rangel has made it clear that the itemized deduction tax hike is not going through his committee — and that should tell you that the American system, the one the Founders created, is still in place…In other words, while it’s reasonable to be unhappy with a Democratic administration and even concerned because the Democrats are now a socialist party in the European sense, we are not witnessing the coming of the antichrist.

But less than a year later, we find Horowitz asserting that Obama and the Democrats have declared a war on the Constitution. Most Conservatives and Republicans have had similar epiphanies with the unseemly process used to pass Obamacare as well as the bill itself. The Constitution has now become the centerpiece of their attention. Several states and private citizens have filed lawsuits. Republicans plan on using repeal as their main campaign platform.

The Tea Party has always had the Constitution as its primary focus, although yet to be determined is whether those Republicans who have rediscovered our nation’s founding principles will embrace the Partiers. The Tea Partiers themselves may be reluctant to accept these advances. Although expressing loyalty to the Constitution, the Partiers’ patriotism, unhindered by any political party affiliation, allows them to be skeptical. They will be looking for consistency in fundamental principles and ideas. And not just with issues like Obamacare.

In Mr. Horowitz’s defense, one is always entitled to change one’s mind. But as we explore consistency of principles, especially among conservative writers, we find that Horowitz penned another essay he also titled “Obama Derangement Syndrome,” in 2008, just after the elections. As copied below, but with one key phrase (actually the real topic of the original article—which will be disclosed in a moment) replaced with “Obamacare,” a portion of it would read as follows:

Conservatives are supposed to respect the organic nature of human societies. Ours has been riven by profound disagreements that have been deepening over many years. We are divided not only about political facts and social values, but also about what the Constitution itself means. The crusaders on this issue choose to ignore these problems and are proposing to deny the will of 64 million voters by appealing to five Supreme Court Justice (since no one is delusional enough to think that the four liberal justices are going to take [Obamacare] away from Obama). What kind of conservatism is this?

It is not conservatism; it is sore loserism and quite radical in its intent. Respect for election results is one of the most durable bulwarks of our unity as a nation. Conservatives need to accept the fact that we lost the election, and get over it; and get on with the important business of reviving our country’s economy and defending its citizens, and — by the way — its Constitution.”

The phrase that was substituted with “Obamacare” was “the Presidency.” The original article was actually an attack against the “birthers.” Yet Horowitz now argues that conservatives (“sore losers” also?) should fight against Obamacare and its rejection of the Constitutional framework. Most of this framework is important to him, apparently, while Article II eligibility is not. Horowitz must find Obama as special as our Narcissist-in-Chief thinks himself—too important to have his reign encumbered by those pesky eligibility provisions. But now that the chickens of Obamacare have come to roost on Horowitz’s own doorstep, he seeks the shelter of the Constitution.

Presidential eligibility is arguably one of the Constitution’s most straightforward provisions, unlike the subjective “general welfare” or interstate commerce clauses or the Tenth Amendment, which are the basis of the lawsuits against Obamacare. The Framers penned our Constitution in only four pages—not 3,000. One can imagine that every single word they included was considered to be of utmost importance.

Democrats forge ahead with liberal and radical ideas that range from stunning ignorance to complete disregard of the Constitution, and to even what seems utter contempt. Republicans and Conservatives like Mr. Horowitz seem to pick and choose among its provisions. The Tea Partiers remain as the only ones who appear to understand that the framers meant all of what they said.

If the “will of the people” is considered a “political question”  — even when this “will” is arguably unconstitutional — a matter that should never be adjudicated by the Supreme Court, then the third branch of government is rendered powerless and the Constitution itself, meaningless. Because, simply put, that is exactly one of the reasons the Supreme Court is appointed—to judge whether actions of the other two branches are in fact Constitutional. Its justices, when they donned their robes, swore to uphold the Constitution, not to rule along predictable ideological lines. There is a prescribed process to be followed when society desires to amend the Constitution. Sixty million votes in a popular election do not overrule eligibility law.

You know that, Mr. Horowitz, et al, yet now you propose we fight this Healthcare reform, justified by your opinion that this is the “will of the people.” The Democratic Congress begs to differ as to what exactly this “will” is—they and Obama “won,” remember? Yet both sides of this argument seem to ignore the fact that we do not live in a Democracy, but rather, a Republic. The wise, “radical” Founding Fathers clearly understood the fickleness of society and created a form of government supported by laws and checks and balances. Simple majority opinion, especially when it is uninformed, uneducated, and purchased with handouts, does not trump the law.

The outright rejection of our laws results in a loss of liberty and ultimately in tyranny. The only defense is to be bound by the Constitution. Not a weakened version, perforated by political correctness, marred by the whims of society, or trampled by a hell-bent Democrat-run Congress and ideologue.

The remedy for “sore-loserism” or “Obama Derangement Syndrome,” David Horowitz, Andrew Breitbart, Mark Levin, Michael Medved and friends? The Constitution, consistently applied, in its entirety. And yes, Glenn Beck, it does matter.