2020 Election Promises To Be Tough on the Constitution

by Ray Keating

The Keating Files – April 15, 2020

Just in case you somehow forgot amidst a pandemic and related economic shutdown, there’s a presidential election in about seven-and-a-half months. Unfortunately, no matter how it turns out, this promises to be a rough one on the U.S. Constitution.

Once again this week, it became clear that President Donald Trump has failed to read and/or understand the Constitution. Meanwhile, former Vice President Joe Biden likely has read one of this nation’s two essential founding documents, but he really doesn’t care what it says.

During this past Monday’s briefing on the coronavirus, Trump said, “I'm going to put it very simply: the president of the United States has the authority to do what the president has the authority to do, which is very powerful. The president of the United States calls the shots. When somebody’s the president of the U.S., the authority is total, and that’s the way it’s gotta be.”

Um, excuse me? But there’s more.

Consider this deeply disturbing claim of total authority on top of a couple of comments in July and June of last year. In June 2019, Trump said, “Article II allows me to do whatever I want.” And the following month, he declared, “Then I have an Article 2, where I have the right to do whatever I want as president.”

Of course, Article II of the Constitution does not grant total authority to a president or give a president the right to do whatever he wants. In fact, the powers of the president are rather limited by Article II, such as executing laws, commander in chief of the armed forces, and negotiating treaties that must be approved by two-thirds of the Senate. In fact, the U.S. Constitution, through its checks and balances, and enumerated powers, seeks to guarantee limited government, and that the purpose of such limited government is to protect the liberties and rights of all men and women – liberties and rights, by the way, that are not granted by government but pre-existed government. That is, our natural rights.

Declaring that for a president “authority is total” explicitly goes against the Constitution, and effectively violates the oath taken by presidents, who say, “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

And given the importance of the Constitution to the foundational principles and ideas of conservatism and this country, my fellow conservatives particularly should be outraged over this authoritarian, anti-Constitution proclamation of President Trump. Indeed, they would have been screaming their outrage if someone like President Obama had said such a thing.

But many Republicans and some conservatives will counter that Trump has appointed and will appoint judges who understand and abide by the Constitution. Perhaps, but how would he know? Well, Trump in effect cut a deal with conservatives during the 2016 election to appoint Supreme Court justices who have received the seal of approval from the Federalist Society and the Heritage Foundation. Thank goodness for that list because no one knows who would be appointed without it. Let’s hope it holds if Trump gets a second term.

As for Biden, in response to Trump’s comments, he said, “I am not running for office to be King of America. I respect the Constitution. I’ve read the Constitution. I’ve sworn an oath to it many times.”

Well, good for Biden, I guess? The problem is that his reading the Constitution doesn’t mean that the Constitution’s purpose and meaning have sunk in or taken hold. After all, Biden pledged in late December, “The people that I would appoint to the Court, are people who have a view of the Constitution as a living document...”

“Living document”? That’s the nice label the Left has adopted for a pernicious judicial philosophy known as judicial activism. The “living document” principle means replacing what the Constitution says with the latest preferences of the Left. Judicial activism violates the Constitution by having judges – especially U.S. Supreme Court justices – claim legislative powers, ignoring what’s actually written in and the intentions of the authors of the document. 

For good measure, the “living document” view of the Constitution rejects the idea of limited government protecting natural rights. Instead, it serves up the notion that government decides the rights that are granted to the people. That, too, points to an authoritarian, anti-Constitution streak.

Rather than interpreting and applying the Constitution and the law, the “living document” crowd, including Biden, believes that a majority on the Supreme Court gets to re-write the Constitution as it sees fit.

So, the depressing choice in November comes down to two men who have little or no regard for the Constitution. That’s deeply troubling, to say the least, for our republic right now, and in terms of political precedents set for the future.

__________

Ray Keating is a columnist, economist, podcaster and entrepreneur.  You can order his new book Behind Enemy Lines: Conservative Communiques from Left-Wing New York  from Amazon or signed books at RayKeatingOnline.com. His other recent nonfiction book is Free Trade Rocks! 10 Points on International Trade Everyone Should Know. Keating also is a novelist. His latest novels are  The Traitor: A Pastor Stephen Grant Novel, which is the 12^thbook in the series, and the second edition of Root of All Evil? A Pastor Stephen Grant Novel with a new Author Introduction. The views expressed here are his own.

Conservatives and Free Enterprise: Friends or Foes?

by Ray Keating

The Keating Files – April 1, 2020

Free enterprise, capitalism or free markets – whichever term you prefer – has come under assault by some conservatives who assert that free enterprise doesn’t fit with conservatism, or if it does, it’s an uncomfortable fit. What such claims reveal is a misunderstanding of what conservatism and free markets are about in the end.

The word “conservatism” itself makes clear that conservatives are engaged in the act of conserving. But when it comes to the economy of late (and this has little to do with the coronavirus situation), some on the Right seem to think that this is about conserving or protecting particular industries, and even using government to attack others. 

So, assorted conservatives support trade protectionism supposedly to conserve certain industries and jobs – particularly in the realm of manufacturing – while ignoring the wounds inflicted on other industries and workers, along with consumers. Still other conservatives (or the same bunch) seem to think that conservatism means using government’s reach to regulate, or even break up, large technology firms deemed to not treat conservatives or their issues fairly, or that make these conservatives feel uneasy about technological change.

Additional conservatives view various businesses as being the actual reason that assorted social conservative issues, for example, such as traditional marriage, have lost traction in the larger culture. Hey, why not point the finger at businesses? After all, who wants to take responsibility for failing to adequately teach and communicate conservative values and ideas? It’s easier to blame someone else, and look for a government bailout.

The greatest failing in these assertions is an inability or refusal to grasp that conservatism finds wisdom and benefits in certain institutions, ideas and principles. And one such institution or idea is free enterprise or capitalism (along with others such as, for example, the value in each human life, the role of the family, the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, the Christian Church, and so on).

Conservatism involves conserving capitalism because of matters that are inherent to free enterprise, and what it produces. Essential to capitalism is freedom, with individuals free to pursue their hopes and dreams absent government coercion and terror. 

And the essential and disciplining aspects of the market – such as profits, losses, prices, competition, cooperation and consumer sovereignty – incentivize people to serve others. That is, in order to succeed, capitalism requires that one must first meet or create the demands of others. This critical, altruistic aspect of capitalism was missed by Ayn Rand at one end of the spectrum, and by misguided conservatives at the other end who seek to establish some kind of bizarre conservative industrial policy, or who like the vague “third way” that assorted Catholics have embraced over the decades.

And of course, anti-capitalists on both the Left and the Right ignore one of the most monumental lessons of history: Free enterprise has proven to be the most powerful force in the entire history of mankind for creating wealth, and lifting people out of poverty.

Finally, beyond freedom and individual responsibility being essential to conservatism, other conservative ideas and values also buttress free enterprise, including the rule of law; virtue and trust; limiting government, and therefore, the ills that government power can wreak; the ability to support a family; and rewarding merit and excellence. Indeed, the list goes on.

Conservatism is not about conserving certain businesses, industries or jobs. Nor is it about using governmental power in other ways, such as trying to force people to believe the same things that a conservative might on certain issues, or using politics to allocate resources. Understanding the evil that government can do makes limited government and an expansive private sphere in life, including the private sector, essential to conservatism. In turn, private institutions that conservatives value are free to flourish – from free enterprise to the individual and the family to assorted faiths, including the Christian Church.

Playing the game that it’s okay for government to engage in industrial policy (where politicians decide that certain industries should be subsidized and protected), and to fail to adequately protect our freedoms, has nothing to do with conservatism. Instead, it’s usually about populism, authoritarianism, and/or nationalism. In fact, these are the waters that Progressives most often swim in, not conservatives. 

The conservative should be wise enough to understand what inevitably happens when government is empowered, and no principled conservatives can be found or they have been corrupted by political power.

Free enterprise, in turn, serves as one of the great checks against the power of government to do evil.

Free markets are not peripheral to or a stepchild of conservatism. Rather, capitalism is essential to conservatism. If one tosses aside free markets, then one is tossing aside a foundational aspect of conservatism – and “conservatism” ceases being conservative.

__________

Ray Keating is a columnist, an economist, a novelist (his latest novels are The Traitor: A Pastor Stephen Grant Novel, which is the 12^th book in the series, and the second edition of Root of All Evil? A Pastor Stephen Grant Novel with a new Author Introduction), a nonfiction author (among his recent works is Free Trade Rocks! 10 Points on International Trade Everyone Should Know), a podcaster, and an entrepreneur. You can also order his forthcoming book Behind Enemy Lines: Conservative Communiques from Left-Wing New York – signed booksor for the Kindle. The views expressed here are his own.