OK, I hope readers don't mind anther book review
The New Road to Serfdom, A Letter of Warning to America by Daniel Hannan, 187pp plus index, Harper (imprint of HarperCollins), 2010
Daniel Hannan, a member of the European Parliament, writes this book to warn the United States not to follow the route Europe has taken. In it he contrasts the historical freedoms in the U.S. with the European situation. He regards the U.S. as the best hope for the world, not only as an example but as the only country likely to stand between freedom and the undemocratic destination toward which Europe wants to lead the world. The real power in the EU is not the elected representatives but appointed bodies essentially accountable to nobody. In fact the British have coined the word “quangos” for those Quasi-Autonomous Non-Government Organizations. These are what Hayek warned about over 60 years ago in the book from which this one takes its name.
The ruling body of the European Union is officially something that can be called a quango. A group of appointed officials is the only body allowed to initiate legislation. Europeans have no way to vote those people out. In addition, European judges often believe that they have power to do what they think right, regardless of the law and international borders. They have issued writs against Ariel Sharon, Donald Rumsfeld and others on the political right (but not of course against Fidel Castro, Yasser Arafat, or Robert Mugabe).
Mr. Hannan describes how the U.S. has historically been different in demanding government by representatives of the people while Europe has moved toward rule by quangos and judges, neither of which is constrained by any representative law-makers. In fact while then first words of the U.S. Constitution are “We the people.” The EU Constitution begins, “His Majesty the King of the Belgians...”
Indeed the EU document was to be approved by voters but when the first two countries (France and the Netherlands) voted they defeated it soundly. After that a team of lawyers went through the document line by line and without changing the meaning made it deliberately unreadable. Then the national governments announced that their previous promise of a referendum no longer applied. Government officials approved the union in flagrant disregard of the wishes of the people.
On a related subject, while the U.S. at least pays lip service to the idea of power dispersed to local and state governments, the EU deliberately takes the opposite track, concentrating power in Brussels. This is combined with constitutional mandates for many aspects of daily life. People are supposed to have a right to a job, to respect, vacation, food, medical care etc. However as in the old Soviet Union those rights exist on paper more than in reality. The author describes many conversations he has had with EU officials in which he points out a problem only to be told in effect, “that isn't a problem, we've listed it as one of our priorities.” Sadly the remedy seems to stop with the paper claim that the problem should be solved.
Mr. Hannan describes why it is a bad idea to copy Europe in economics, health care, welfare, society in general, and immigration and why we should not abandon federalism. He makes a good case for a return to the constitutional principles that the U.S. seems to be moving away from.
The one weakness in this book is the lack of references. While much of the material comes from the author's personal observations, there is much that should have been documented. However in spite of that weakness it is an important book, one deserving of wide attention. As Barack Obama and others try to move us toward a European model we really should look at where we are going if we follow that route.
Showing posts with label United States. Show all posts
Showing posts with label United States. Show all posts
Wednesday, December 15, 2010
Wednesday, August 26, 2009
The “Living Constitution”
Suppose you are the president of a building maintenance company. In about 1982 that company signed a contract agreeing to maintain all the windows in a certain office building. The option for yearly renewal has been exercised so the contract is still valid.
One day you get a call from the building manager informing you that you are in default and he will sue unless you correct the problem. What? You've had people there every week, cleaning the windows and making sure that they are weather tight, how can you be in default? The manager points out that the contract says all the windows in the building. However you have done nothing for the Windows operating systems on the computers in the building. Many of them are now virus-infected and not working properly. He demands that you fix them.
Of course you respond that the contract never meant computer windows which didn't even exist when it was written. “Not so,” he replies. “We have a living language and the contract is written in that living language so it is a living document. The term 'windows' now applies to computer Windows which means the contract does as well.”
Of course that sounds silly. Should you be sued I would hope that any judge would throw it out of court. The contract has the meaning it had when it was written. To claim otherwise would potentially change the meaning of all contracts. For any agreement to be useful it must have a fixed meaning. Otherwise we would not know what we will be expected to do to fulfill our part of the bargain.
Unfortunately there are many who want to change the meaning of the most important agreement we have in this country – our constitution. Those people claim that it is a “living document,” a high-sounding phrase, but essentially without meaning. Documents do not live except in the sense that they can be changed by the agreement of all parties involved. Contracts can be changed if all signers agree. Likewise the constitution includes provision for changes, two methods of making changes in fact. That has been exercised throughout our history so that it now has 27 amendments. That in fact is the only sense in which the constitution was ever intended to be a “living document.”
Those claiming that we have a “living constitution” simply want to change its meaning without getting the people’s approval in the manner provided. Effectively, they want to arrogate to themselves the dictatorial power to change our government, regardless of the will of the people.
“But wait,” some will say. “What about the fact that some parts might be understood differently? In fact some of the writers themselves disagreed over what they wanted it to say.”
Those objections are common today but are in general mere smoke screens, put up by people who do not like constitutional restrictions on government power. While there are a couple of points that might be difficult to understand, the great bulk of the document is quite explicit when we look at the common meaning of the wording at the time it was written. That is the only valid way to look at it, just as with any contract the only valid meaning is what the wording meant when it was written.
The fact that there is now a computer operating system called called “Windows” has no effect at all on contracts written before it existed. Likewise the fact that some words have changed their meaning since 1787 has no effect on the meaning of the constitution. We have to look at what those words commonly meant in legal documents of 1787, or in the case of amendments, at what they meant when the amendment was written. The meaning must remain fixed if it is to have any meaning at all.
As for the writers disagreeing among themselves as to what they wanted the constitution to say, that is also meaningless. When people get together to write a contract there is almost always disagreement on what that contract will say. Some may want an escape clause, some may oppose it. Some may want automatic renewal in the absence of specific cancellation while others may want renewal only if all parties specifically agree to it. That means nothing, what counts is what eventually gets written in the final, signed document.
Likewise what the constitution's writers wanted has no validity. Some wanted a quick end to slavery, some wanted slavery to be protected forever. Neither viewpoint became part of the constitution. Only the wording actually included and ratified has any force or validity. That is the only way that remarkable document can protect our liberties. If its meaning can be twisted to suit the whims of politicians, it becomes nothing more than a historical artifact. However if we follow the wording as it was understood in the time and context of its origin, we will protect our liberty from homegrown tyranny.
To allow twisting of the constitution's meaning removes our ability to know what to expect as citizens and in our businesses. That harms our personal life as well as our economy just as an ex post facto law would. (See my blog on that at http://hallillywhite.blogspot.com/search?q=ex+post+facto).
If you like my blog, please tell others.
If you don't like it, please tell me.
One day you get a call from the building manager informing you that you are in default and he will sue unless you correct the problem. What? You've had people there every week, cleaning the windows and making sure that they are weather tight, how can you be in default? The manager points out that the contract says all the windows in the building. However you have done nothing for the Windows operating systems on the computers in the building. Many of them are now virus-infected and not working properly. He demands that you fix them.
Of course you respond that the contract never meant computer windows which didn't even exist when it was written. “Not so,” he replies. “We have a living language and the contract is written in that living language so it is a living document. The term 'windows' now applies to computer Windows which means the contract does as well.”
Of course that sounds silly. Should you be sued I would hope that any judge would throw it out of court. The contract has the meaning it had when it was written. To claim otherwise would potentially change the meaning of all contracts. For any agreement to be useful it must have a fixed meaning. Otherwise we would not know what we will be expected to do to fulfill our part of the bargain.
Unfortunately there are many who want to change the meaning of the most important agreement we have in this country – our constitution. Those people claim that it is a “living document,” a high-sounding phrase, but essentially without meaning. Documents do not live except in the sense that they can be changed by the agreement of all parties involved. Contracts can be changed if all signers agree. Likewise the constitution includes provision for changes, two methods of making changes in fact. That has been exercised throughout our history so that it now has 27 amendments. That in fact is the only sense in which the constitution was ever intended to be a “living document.”
Those claiming that we have a “living constitution” simply want to change its meaning without getting the people’s approval in the manner provided. Effectively, they want to arrogate to themselves the dictatorial power to change our government, regardless of the will of the people.
“But wait,” some will say. “What about the fact that some parts might be understood differently? In fact some of the writers themselves disagreed over what they wanted it to say.”
Those objections are common today but are in general mere smoke screens, put up by people who do not like constitutional restrictions on government power. While there are a couple of points that might be difficult to understand, the great bulk of the document is quite explicit when we look at the common meaning of the wording at the time it was written. That is the only valid way to look at it, just as with any contract the only valid meaning is what the wording meant when it was written.
The fact that there is now a computer operating system called called “Windows” has no effect at all on contracts written before it existed. Likewise the fact that some words have changed their meaning since 1787 has no effect on the meaning of the constitution. We have to look at what those words commonly meant in legal documents of 1787, or in the case of amendments, at what they meant when the amendment was written. The meaning must remain fixed if it is to have any meaning at all.
As for the writers disagreeing among themselves as to what they wanted the constitution to say, that is also meaningless. When people get together to write a contract there is almost always disagreement on what that contract will say. Some may want an escape clause, some may oppose it. Some may want automatic renewal in the absence of specific cancellation while others may want renewal only if all parties specifically agree to it. That means nothing, what counts is what eventually gets written in the final, signed document.
Likewise what the constitution's writers wanted has no validity. Some wanted a quick end to slavery, some wanted slavery to be protected forever. Neither viewpoint became part of the constitution. Only the wording actually included and ratified has any force or validity. That is the only way that remarkable document can protect our liberties. If its meaning can be twisted to suit the whims of politicians, it becomes nothing more than a historical artifact. However if we follow the wording as it was understood in the time and context of its origin, we will protect our liberty from homegrown tyranny.
To allow twisting of the constitution's meaning removes our ability to know what to expect as citizens and in our businesses. That harms our personal life as well as our economy just as an ex post facto law would. (See my blog on that at http://hallillywhite.blogspot.com/search?q=ex+post+facto).
If you like my blog, please tell others.
If you don't like it, please tell me.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
