No Runny Eggs

So claims E. J. Dionne in his latest lament that the United States is founded on a set of laws rather than the whimsy and momentary brain flatulence of any given Congress or President.

First, Dionne claims that the Right’s last option is the court. He claims that via SCOTUS, the Right will obstruct the will of the people even once new “Progressive” measures, according to two UNNAMED “influential journalists” (at least in Dionne’s mind) “had been overwhelmingly approved both in Congress and at the polling booths.”

Dionne’s comments are laughable for so many reasons.

First, it’s the Left that has been using SCOTUS for years to create law out of whole cloth. The most obvious of these is Roe versus Wade. Additionally, Justices like Breyer think the Constitution isn’t enough for us. Breyer thinks we should look to foreign laws for insight and direction.

Second, Dionne uses the example of the Conservative court holding FDR’s New Deal Program at bay as evidence of how a Conservative court could be obstructive.   As with all good liberals I’m sure that Dionne believes that the outcome always justifies the means.   In Dionne’s mind, it is simply inconvenience that the Conservative judges were fighting the New Deal because they saw no place in the Constitution that the Federal government had authority to enact such legislation.   Heck, for the Left, it was the “right” thing to do, it didn’t matter if it was the Constitutional thing to do.

Finally, Dionne raises the  spectre that the Right could dismantle or block  issues that he believes could result in the undoing of America:

It’s not hard to imagine the cases that conservatives would bring against laws passed by a Democratic Congress and signed by a President Barack Obama. Why wouldn’t a movement that has tried to eviscerate wetlands laws and the Endangered Species Act challenge cap-and-trade legislation aimed at dealing with global warming?

If Congress ever passed a “card-check” law to make it easier for unions to organize, those who never much liked the minimum wage or collective bargaining would certainly try to overturn the new labor right in court.

And what would be the legal fate of new regulations on banking called forth by the economic devastation of the subprime mess, or bank bailouts that may be necessary to keep capitalism on track, or mandatory mortgage renegotiations to keep citizens from being thrown out of their homes?

This is going to take a while but let’s look quickly at what Dionne is so fearful of:

Wetland law evisceration: I seem to remember the Constitution providing for a thing called Private Property. Confiscatory taking is another  Constitutional no no. Wetland laws violate both of those provisions.

Endangered Species Act: See “Wetland law Evisceration”

Cap and Trade: Do we really need to discuss that any further? OK, See “Wetland law Evisceration”

Card Check law: Dionne apparently falls into the category of “all votes should be private and counted, at least once, maybe more, unless they are for Republicans or when supporting direct employer/employee relations.”

“May be necessary to keep capitalism on track” – Here’s the dirty little secret, Capitalism works best when government stays out. Capitalism doesn’t need to be kept on track, government needs to quit trying to dictate outcomes. The folks in the old Soviet Union found out out poorly government planned economies worked. Heck, even the Chinese have had to open the doors, grudgingly so, to pieces of Capitalism so that their economy can grow to support their expanding population.

The Constitution has proven to be the most prescient document ever created by men. However, if Dionne is really so disappointed with the wisdom incorporated in it, the Framers even provided for a means to change it……by getting “overwhelming” votes from the People’s representatives followed by confirmation by the people. Of course, all of that takes time and may cause people to fully think through the implications of such a significant action.   Maybe, just maybe, that too was the Framer’s intent!

I wonder if the Framers ever forsaw people like Dionne. People who are so unappreciative and dismissive of their work while chosing to remain ignorant of what it actually contains?