The view from Britain: comparing two constitutions, and our coming choice

Posted by: Phineas on September 5, 2011 at 1:01 pm

**Posted by Phineas

While writing about the frightening proposal by former German Chancellor (1) Gerhard Schroeder for a fully-formed “United States of Europe,” the Telegraph’s James Delingpole made an astute observation about the differences between the United States Constitution and the European Union’s governing document:

In the US, they have a Constitution (one which the current administration would prefer to ignore, but still) which explicitly guarantees the constituent states in the Union the right to forge their own destiny. They can set their own local tax rates, their own speed limits, their position on social issues such as abortion, gay marriage, and marijuana consumption, and so on. This Constitution is what has made America great and Americans so free: and the two things are very much connected. When, for example, one state falls prey to rampant big government (eg California), there will always be other states offering a different sociopolitical model (eg Texas) – thus enabling free citizens of the Republic to vote with their feet. They will gravitate towards the model which best serves their needs – thus endorsing it – while fleeing the model they find less attractive, thus discrediting it. In this way bad political ideas cannot so easily take root in the US. Not at least so long as the Constitution is respected.

In the European Union, however, the Constitution serves exactly the opposite purpose. It is designed to give the constituent states as little freedom as possible to decide their own destinies; all decisions are deferred upwards to the controlling central authority; and when member states make the “wrong” decision, the EU superpower simply goes ahead and does what it wants regardless.

To give an example of this top-down control, the Library of the House of Commons in the UK estimates that fully half of Britain’s laws come, not from the democratically elected Parliament in London, but as directives handed down by the unelected bureaucracy in Brussels. Schroeder’s proposal, rather than creating a “more perfect union,” would instead cement into place a dictatorship of the nomenklatura.

One can’t help but notice also, and as Delingpole obliquely does above, that the Obama administration would very much like to institute that same Continental Model here — witness the actions of the EPA, the NLRB, and the FCC, just to name a few.

Keep that in mind come November, 2012. We won’t just be choosing a president, but the character of our union.

Footnote:
(1) And also a Putin crony. That should tell us all we need to know.

(Crossposted at Public Secrets)

RSS feed for comments on this post.

9 Responses to “The view from Britain: comparing two constitutions, and our coming choice”

Comments

  1. Carlos says:

    Gosh oh golly, it sure sounds a lot like an expanded version of the old USSR politburo, doesn’t it?

    And speaking of Mr. Schroeder, wasn’t he tied to the Nazi regime of such great repute? That would figure, since socialism is running rampant all over the world today, including here in the good ol’ U.S. of A.

    I wonder if and when the stodgy old coots of the Republican regime will figure out that they could make hay by tying Mr. Obama and his policies to National Socialism, and tying National Socialism to the term “Nazi”?

    Or maybe they don’t want to because that’s their endgame, too?

  2. Tom TB says:

    It might be a disappointment to our British friends, but we haven’t had States rights for a long time, or did we ever? What was the effect of the Fugitive Slave Act, and the Dred Scott Supreme Court Decision? Wickard v. Filburn and the commerce clause that ruled that an Ohio farmer couldn’t grow his own crop to feed his own dairy herd, because he would have had to buy the feed elsewhere? Whatever anyone thinks about marywanna use, it is still illegal by FEDERAL LAW, regardless of any States legislature. We aren’t as free as they think we are!

  3. Nonsense. Democracy is the biggest fiction to date perpetrated by the monied class.

  4. Dana says:

    Was Mr Deilingpole making a joke? He selected five things as examples of states rights,

    They can set their own local tax rates, their own speed limits, their position on social issues such as abortion, gay marriage, and marijuana consumption, and so on,

    yet only one of them — that states can set their own tax rates — is correct, but even there, the states are required to collect certain federal taxes, such as the federal excise tax on gasoline. States cannot set their own positions on abortion, beyond some minor tweaking, are having their laws restricting marriage to heterosexual couples overturned by federal courts, and marijuana laws are superceded by federal laws.

  5. The Griper says:

    everyone, please reread what was being said by Mr. Dellingpole. he is speaking of the Constitution and what it says. this should be a lesson to all about how it was meant to be understood and that we the people need to unite to bring back a constitutional government. if we don’t, what value does a constitution have in the governing of a people?

  6. Carlos says:

    @The Griper: Actually, it gives a Chicago thug and his merry gang of miscreants a prop to claim validity, all the while knowing he gamed the system to the max and was elected by fools foggy enough to be scammed, other miscreants, criminal aliens and the cemetery vote.

    But that’s what the Europeans do, so it’s right in line with being of the “New World Order.”

  7. The Griper says:

    carlos,
    what the constitution has actually done and what the constitution was intended on doing are two diferent issues. it is up to the prople to see to it that the federal government abides by the constitution as intended when ratified by the States. it was wise old Ben Franklin who made that perfectly clear.

  8. Carlos says:

    Actually, Griper, from my point of view it’s what the Constitution was intended to do as opposed to black robes in the last century (mainly) finding ways to convince us rubes that what the Constitution says is not actually what it means.

    Seems to me the black robes need to take more college courses on language, definition and clear intent.

  9. The Griper says:

    carlos,
    now you have got me totally confused. i have no idea of what you are trying to convey now.