With the passage of the $2 trillion coronavirus stimulus package it made me wonder where did all those fiscal deficit hawks fly off to. When the whole country falls into the category “too big to fail” the wallet really opens up.  And some economists and financial gurus say it might not be enough. It appears that our governments, state and federal, are overwhelmed on how to move forward in dealing with the pandemic we are facing.

In this shelter-in-place time I found myself taking longs walks. On one of these walks through my neighborhood I came across a lawn filled with political yard signs for the up and coming primary elections. One sign in particular piqued my imagination in today’s pandemic. It was a sign with no candidate’s name posted, just initials, and no party affiliation. It simply said “Constitutional Conservative.” And I thought what is a Constitutional conservative and considered what President Bill Clinton said in his impeachment defense “It depends upon what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is.”

The conundrum  I had with the sign was that it was next to two red signs: one proclaiming  “Make America Great Again” (which makes me wonder when we became not great– maybe just after the first case of coronavirus); and the second red sign simply advertising “Trump 2020.” Nothing personal against President Trump but I never really considered him Constitutional anything.  More of Constitutional Compass in a magnetic storm. But the signs did give me a rough bearing to follow.

It is not my intention to to weigh in on the pros and cons of the Trump Administration or rehash the last three years of political discourse or even the last three months. Much wiser men and women have taken that cross upon their shoulders.  However, what I find puzzling is how to reconcile the past three years; or any three years after the approval of the Constitution for that mater, with the term “Constitutional Conservative. ”  As far as I know this could be a marketing scheme, a sort of joint branding taking place between a nebulous (or obvious) group of Constitutional Conservatives and the Trump name  Maybe its just political happenstance like the Whig party and the Know Nothings way back in the 1850s. We may ask ourselves, How did that work out?

This makes me wonder what Constitutional conservative means in the crisis we are now in. Does a strict view of the Constitution have any bearing on what is going on? In a time of crisis the Constitution tends to get stretched.  Abraham Lincoln took liberties expanding the traditional role of the presidency.  His views on secession differed with the Constitutional viewpoint of say his counterpart, Jefferson Davis, who looked at the Union as a compact of states that could be undone. And Lincoln really waded into constitutionality with his Emancipation Proclamation freeing slaves in states that left the Union or were in open rebellion against the Union.  But Lincoln kept it all within the guideposts of the rule of law. Lincoln knew the law and he knew where he could bend it with out breaking it. But none the less, he took a lot of heat from the Democrats for the way he conducted the war .

Our Constitution calls for a bicameral legislative body and a Supreme Court to interpret what is constitutional. Nowhere in the Constitution does it mandate a two party system. Unlike other countries with a multitude of parties, particularly those with a Parliamentary form of government, when an election has no majority winner, then various parties come together to form a majority coalition to run the government, as in the recent elections in Israel. Here, in the US, third party ideas get absorbed into one of the main parties. The Tea Party movement, for example,  got pulled into the GOP like a black hole sucking in a nearby planet. Unlike a black hole, where we are not sure what comes out the other end, here on terra firma we get to see the end results.

So who or what is a Constitutional Conservative?  Right off the bat I would say Alexander Hamilton or George Washington.  Washington simply because he was the president of the Constitutional Convention and the first President of the United States. Doing a quick internet search, George’s name does not pop up as Constitutional Conservative. This, despite, the many references to the “intent” of the Founding Fathers. Here again, no Washington but you will find Senator Barry Goldwater and President Ronald Reagan’s smiling faces popping up as disciples of original intent.

From what I can glean a Constitutional Conservative is somebody who believes in in low or no taxes, limited government,  Christian family values, and sees liberals as a threat to American Exceptionalism.  I am going to stop there on American Exceptionalism because that is another political black hole concept that is easy to fly into with no idea where you will come out–that is if you come out. In the short, it looks like the old belt buckle proclaiming God, guns and guts–let’s fight to keep all three.

Once again, it is not my intention to deride conservative values.  But when it comes to taxes what American in their right mind  would turn down the option of legally not paying taxes?  Just look at the lengths the current president has gone to keep his tax returns secret.  It’s called tax evasion. Evading taxes is like avoiding the coronavirus–shelter your returns in a safe place.  Remember,  tax evasion is how the Feds got Al Capone.

We also have to remember we are a country founded on smugglers and tax evaders.  The guy who signed his name so boldly to the Declaration of Independence, John Hancock, was one of the biggest tax cheats in the Colonies.  I am sure if King George III could have gotten a hold of Hancock he would have done several eons in irons as a permanent resident of the Tower.

But avoiding taxes was not just for rich merchants. We even had  western farmers in the early stages of the nation balk at taxes. The Whiskey Rebellion took place from 1791 to 1794 when farmers refused to pay newly levied taxes on whiskey.  Before there was high fructose corn syrup and ethanol, there was corn liquor. A very lucrative way to turn surplus corn into cash. As a Constitutional Conservative, President George Washington, led an army out into Pennsylvania to collect the taxes and put the rebellion down in person.

One of the remarkable qualities of America, and its Constitution, is our Christian values that allowed us to set up a government where religion and politics tried to stay out of each others bailiwick or diocese.  The questioning of one’s beliefs or no belief at all has not pillared anybody at a burning stake. Although there were some fanatical Puritans in pre-constitutional times  roaming around in the late 1600s looking for witches. Here again Christian values have evolved through time with the rule of law.  We no longer hunt witches or Irish immigrant papists down.

As for the “intent” of those who wrote the Constitution,  eleven members of the convention were either slave owners or associated with the “peculiar institution” of slavery. This is the paradox of American exceptionalism.  In one document we proclaim boldly “all men are created equal” and then in another we decide that some men will be considered “three-fifths of a person.” This seems arbitrary. But it is not. All that would change in the Dred Scott decision.   Chief Justice Roger B. Taney’s court even went beyond a strict Constitutional conservative decision definitively saying that Dred Scott, a slave, had no rights at all under the Constitution. He turned Scott into property except when it benefited the purposes of their slave owners for tax purposes and representation. Taney and associates were no doubt following a close interpretation of the Constitution. But was this interpretation the intent of all the signers of the Constitution?

Even the founders found ways to get around a strict interpretation of the Constitution.  Alexander Hamilton used the “necessary and proper” clause to get a national bank.  It makes sense.   Congress can coin money, set and collect taxes but there is no mention of banking. Hamilton reasoned that a bank was needed to put the nation’s money in. There was no Goldman and Sachs back then. No Federal Reserve and no quantitative easing.

As much as President Trump proclaims he is a great builder and developer Thomas Jefferson has him beat hands down with the Louisiana Purchase.  Jefferson, who had a strict view of the Constitution, found no Constitutional way to get this land deal done.  But there was a twist in the Constitution.  The president can negotiate treaties.  Looking beyond the limitations, Jefferson made the land deal with Napoleon a treaty. Then got Congress to approve it.  Talk about the art of the deal.

And then there is Andrew Jackson.  I am not sure if this populist president would fall into the Constitutional conservative file or not. He did not, however, look fondly upon Henry Clay’s concept of the American System. Clay proposed using tax revenues from tariffs for internal improvements such as roads, bridges and canals. Jackson felt that funding these sorts of projects, particularly Clay’s Maysville Road Bill that would tie various roads in Kentucky to the Ohio River and the Cumberland Road System, as unconstitutional. Jackson promptly vetoed the bill. Of course there was a deep political animosity between the two political rivals that grew throughout their public life.

It is interesting to note that 120 years later President Dwight Eisenhower took a completely different view. In 1956 Eisenhower signed one of the greatest infrastructure deals in history with the Federal-Aid Highway Act. This act create 41,000 miles of interstate highways  with  I-90 being more than 3,000 miles long running from Seattle to Boston.

So, I am not sure about strictly holding on to old ideas.  There is some comfort in knowing rules hold up over time.  But even baseball has changed. It has a Designated Hitter, football players don’t have to play both ways, basketball has a three point line; and to make sure every call is correct, we now have instant replay review. So much kicking for arguing and kicking dirt on an umpires shoes.

I often think that most people who spout off about the Constitution forget the Preamble part where the purpose of the Constitution is laid out.  With all the yammering about abortion and gun rights we forget that the reason our government was founded was “to establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty.”  It is a tall order without a doubt trying to meet these demands. Those who wrote the Constitution during that hot Philadelphia summer had no idea there would be space travel or instantaneous communication.

But now that we are engulfed in a pandemic maybe we should look to the Preamble of our Constitution as a beacon of hope. The government has the task of balancing justice, tranquility, and the general welfare all the while trying secure our liberties.  Is this the time to take a 19th Century approach to a 21st Century problem? Or look forward to progress.

 

 

https://www.ushistory.org/us/24e.asp

https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/interstate/history.cfm

https://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/infrastructure/g2827/7-of-the-longest-us-interstates/

https://www.nationalreview.com/magazine/2019/01/28/toward-a-constitutional-conservatism/

https://theweek.com/articles/654508/what-exactly-american-exceptionalism