Dear Friends,
It seems to me, the level of vitriol and out of control protests, during the Kavanaugh Supreme Court hearings, illustrates how far we have wandered from original intent… and to an evolving constitution. The Supreme court, as Madison said in the Federalist Papers, was supposed to be the weakest branch, and it was, until it decided to take matters into it’s own hands. Abandoning original intent and embracing the evolutionary concept of our Constitution. As embodied in the old saw, “living breathing document…” Thus the Court taking on the heavy responsibility to amend the Constitution as time, expedience and circumstance dictates. Negating the very reason for a constitution, so that the constitution only gives the illusion of legal authority, to arbitrary rule. A great responsibility, yes, but one any psychopath, and only a Thrasymachus or Machiavelli, feels him or herself worthy of.
There are only two positions one can take when it comes to limited government, either it should be limited or not. Both are legitimate positions. There is no middle ground however. There have been strong arguments made for both throughout history by very intelligent people. Plato’s entire book, The Republic, turns on the discourse between Socrates and Thrasymachus, on justice as an end or a means, which correlates to limited and unlimited government. Since, if justice is an end, a good in and of itself, limited government is called for. Because justice requires it. If however, justice is a means, a tool to keep the little people in line, then unlimited government is what is sought. Both positions, justice as a means or an end, arbitrary rule or just rule, unlimited government or limited government… all highly correlate. Unjust, unlimited and arbitrary rule on the one side and justice, limited government and equality under the law on the other.
There is arbitrary rule. Along with many psychopaths like Hitler, Stalin, Mao, etc… there were philosophers who honestly favored the notion that justice is a means, a tool to keep the little people in line, in unlimited government and arbitrary rule… so there can be greater prosperity for everyone. Machiavelli posited just such a theory in his book, The Prince. In which he said, a stable tyranny is better than an unstable democracy for the middle class. Because in an unstable democracy, there is chaos and so business cannot be done, resulting in general poverty. While in a stable tyranny, business goes on fine, because no one dares step out of line. It is only the aristocrats who feel the heel of the jack boot…Those who favor unlimited government usually justify it in unstable times, by saying it will lead to stability, and so in stable times they favor policies that will create instability.
Limited government was the apex of a thousand years of Western philosophical thought, the foundation of which, in many ways, mirrored Chinese philosophical thought. Taking in all areas of philosophy, and the new “sciences” of economics and psychology, the thinkers of the Enlightenment rationally chose limited government. By limiting government the people could be freed to follow their own course. Each will strive to improve their own lot and in doing so raise the lot of the whole. The means they hit upon to limit government was a constitution, a contract between the governors and the governed. If all Supreme Court Justices limited themselves to their Constitutional role, as originalists… no one would care a whit who was on it. The power, and controversy, comes in the ability to change the Constitution. Each faction striving to get the upper hand on the supreme arbitrary authority.
The position that the Constitution is a living breathing document, as favored by Ginsburg, Sotomayor, Kagan, Breyer and probably Roberts, is the same logically and functionally as favoring arbitrary rule and unlimited government. Their position is the same as Thrasymachus, Justice is a tool of the powerful over the weak, that the contract between the governors and the governed can be changed by the governors, at any time, if five of nine Supreme Court Justices find it expedient. In other words, they favor arbitrary rule at the most fundamental level. They believe they and the rest of the new class elite are so much smarter, better educated, and gosh darn it, just better people, than the rest of us. So there we have it, the central question causing all the ruckus is, should the US abandon limited government, have arbitrary rule, and evolve the Constitution as they see fit, or not? Those who demand arbitrary rule are very adamant about it. Shouldn’t we strive as hard to return to Constitutional rule?
Sincerely,
John Pepin
