Home
/
RELIGION & LIBERTY
/
A new era of constitutional drift
A new era of constitutional drift
Oct 6, 2024 6:45 PM

Just over 100 days into President Joe Biden’s administration, whatever hopes we held out that he would govern as a moderate are gone. The president seems determined to transform American society from the top down. Candidate Biden promised national unity and the restoration of lawful government. President Biden has, thus far, given us budget-busting spending packages, interference in the courts, and a flurry of executive orders of dubious constitutionality. These are not just bad policies; Biden’s program strikes at the heart of self-government itself. Americans must be alert: We’re in the midst of a constitutional revolution.

President Biden’s legislative agenda is both dangerous and dishonest. The $1.9 trillion American Rescue Plan was sold to the public as a COVID-19 relief act, but less than 10% of that bill was directly devoted to fighting the virus. The vast majority of the bill was a payout to longstanding progressive constituencies. Bailouts for profligate state governments and insolvent pensions might be good politics, but they have nothing to do with stemming the pandemic.

The same applies to the president’s $2.3 trillion infrastructure proposal, the American Jobs Plan. “Infrastructure” is defined so broadly that it’s e an internet meme: “Everything is infrastructure!” When most Americans hear about an infrastructure bill, they think of things like roads, bridges, harbors, and airports. They don’t think of housing, climate change, and childcare, all of which the bill funds to the tune of billions of dollars. Biden is using infrastructure investment as an excuse to politicize the allocation of valuable capital.

Citizens’ vigilance may not be enough to fix things. But it’s the only option we’ve got left.

The president’s designs for the Supreme Court are even worse. Biden recently announced an mission for increasing the number of Supreme Court justices. Democratic legislators in both the House and Senate introduced a bill to expand the court from nine to 13 seats. It’s unclear whether Democrats seriously want to pack the courts or merely to bully the sitting justices into submission. While the former is particularly appalling, both are flagrant challenges to the separation of powers, supposedly an ponent of the American constitutional system.

As for executive orders, Biden has acted as a de facto legislator, without any of the traditional checks on legislative processes. By April 15, the president signed more than 60 executive orders, a greater number than any president over the same period in their administrations: 23 of these specifically targeted the policies of his predecessor. When major policies can be reversed by presidential whim, the stability of American government suffers. Citizens won’t know what to expect from the state if dueling factions nullify each other’s policies every time one captures the White House. Furthermore, governance by executive fiat clearly usurps power intended to rest with Congress alone. This isn’t what the rule of law looks like.

While Biden’s actions are undoubtedly calculated to advance Democratic interests, it would be a grave mistake to regard these policies as mere partisanship. Instead, Biden’s executive overreach should be understood as a symptom of a systemic problem in American politics: The Biden administration is giving us a real-time view of constitutional drift. This has been an issue long before Biden, and in all likelihood will be a problem long after him. If we have any hope of preventing constitutional drift, we must understand how it works.

Constitutional drift refers to the tendency for de facto government to diverge from de jure government. In other words, it means there’s a widening gulf between the paper Constitution and the real constitution. The procedures and immunities enshrined in America’s governing charter no longer reflect the realities of political power. This is especially pernicious given Americans’ reverence for the Constitution and, hence, constitutional means for addressing government abuses. If citizens think the Constitution is one thing, whereas politicians know it’s something else, the people won’t be able to discipline those who govern them.

Americans sometimes have a hard time understanding constitutional drift because of their attachment to formal constitutionalism. We think the way to get lawful government is to write down a set of rules for rule-making – the Constitution – and then tell public officials to follow them. Unfortunately, this rests on a narrow and parochial understanding of constitutions. Philosophers of politics have been writing about constitutions for millennia. For Aristotle, a constitution meant the balance of forces among holders of political power, which determined how the state made decisions. On this view, all constitutions are de facto constitutions.

Prior to the Enlightenment, political philosophers would have regarded writing down a specific blueprint for government as silly. Either the formal constitution would match the informal constitution, in which case the formal constitution is redundant, or the formal constitution would not match the informal constitution, in which case the formal constitution is useless. Thus, the lacuna in Americans’ beloved formal constitutionalism: We mistakenly think we can make politics algorithmic. Unfortunately, power follows a logic of its own. We erred when we assumed the legislative branch would zealously guard its powers from the executive branch. In reality, Congress seems happy to fork over as much of its remaining prerogatives as the president wants.

Tragically, Joe Biden is a consummate constitutional politician, with a lower-case c. Those of us who dread the inevitable consequences of his policies must learn that plaints about unlawful government are full of sound and fury, signifying nothing to those who know first-hand that the real law is something quite different than we imagine. I, too, wish Congress were a meaningful policymaking organ, that elected officials exercised restraint in disbursing public revenues, and that the Ninth and Tenth Amendments were regarded as more than mere curiosities. If only wishing made it so.

How, then, can citizens participate in their government and hold it accountable? What we, the people, must learn is that the only way to anchor a drifting constitution is to punish those who set it adrift. This is the citizen’s role in a democratic republic. We aren’t supposed to be passive spectators of the latest Washington boondoggles. The willingness of citizens to impose costs on executive branch adventurers, as well as those who aid and abet them in Congress, is a crucial part of the American system. Unfortunately, our electorate has a habit of excusing political overreach when their team is in power. Until and unless a critical mass of voters proves itself willing to discipline politicians who do the wrong thing for the right reason, the Constitution will remain lost at sea.

It’s probably too late to restrain the forces President Biden has unleashed. Although it will be masked by the post-coronavirus recovery, the massive increase in the scale and scope of government will eventually cause political-economic sclerosis. “Only a crisis – actual or perceived – produces real change,” Milton Friedman warned. “When that crisis occurs, the actions that are taken depend on the ideas that are lying around.” This time, “the ideas that are lying around” better be more substantive than market liberalization. Economics is important, but it’s downstream from politics. We must prepare now to right the ship of state when the opportunity presents itself. The longer the constitution drifts, the harder it is to set it back on course.

F. A. Hayek famously extolled the virtues of a “constitution of liberty.” Because of constitutional drift, these constitutions are exceedingly hard to ordain or keep. Citizens’ vigilance may not be enough to fix things. But it’s the only option we’ve got left, and ordered liberty is always worth a try.

Comments
Welcome to mreligion comments! Please keep conversations courteous and on-topic. To fosterproductive and respectful conversations, you may see comments from our Community Managers.
Sign up to post
Sort by
Show More Comments
RELIGION & LIBERTY
Creating an Economy of Inclusion
The poor have been the main subject of concern in the whole tradition of Catholic Social Teaching. The Catholic Church talks often about a “preferential option for the poor.” In recent years, many of the Church’s social teaching documents have been particularly focused on the needs of the poorest people in the world’s poorest countries. The first major analysis of this topic could be said to have been in the papal encyclical Populorum Progressio, published in 1967 by Pope...
Jesus and Class Warfare
Plenty of Marxists have turned to the New Testament and the origins of Christianity. Memorable examples include the works of F.D. Maurice and Zhu Weizhi’s Jesus the Proletarian. After criticizing how so many translations of the New Testament soften Jesus’ teachings regarding material possessions, greed, and wealth, Orthodox theologian David Bentley Hart has gone so far to ask, “Are Christians supposed to be Communists?” In the Huffington Post, Dan Arel has even claimed that “Jesus was clearly a Marxist,...
Spurgeon and the Poverty-Fighting Church
Religion & Liberty: Volume 33, Number 4 Spurgeon and the Poverty-Fighting Church by Christopher Parr • October 30, 2023 Portrait of Charles Spurgeon by Alexander Melville (1885) Charles Spurgeon was a young, zealous 15-year-old boy when he came to faith in Christ. A letter to his mother at the time captures the enthusiasm of his newfound Christian faith: “Oh, how I wish that I could do something for Christ.” God granted that wish, as Spurgeon would e “the prince of...
How Dispensationalism Got Left Behind
Whether we like it or not, Americans, in one way or another, have all been indelibly shaped by dispensationalism. Such is the subtext of Daniel Hummel’s provocative telling of the rise and fall of dispensationalism in America. In a little less than 350 pages, Hummel traces how a relatively insignificant Irishman from the Plymouth Brethren, John Nelson Darby, prompted the proliferation of dispensational theology, especially its eschatology, or theology of the end times, among our ecclesiastical, cultural, and political...
Lord Jonathan Sacks: The West’s Rabbi
In October 1798, the president of the United States wrote to officers of the Massachusetts militia, acknowledging a limitation of federal rule. “We have no government,” John Adams wrote, “armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, and revenge or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net.” The nation that Adams had helped to found would require the parts of the body...
Conversation Starters with … Anne Bradley
Anne Bradley is an Acton affiliate scholar, the vice president of academic affairs at The Fund for American Studies, and professor of economics at The Institute of World Politics. There’s much talk about mon good capitalism” these days, especially from the New Right. Is this long overdue, that a hyper-individualism be beaten back, or is it merely cover for increasing state control of the economy? Let me begin by saying that I hate “capitalism with adjectives” in general. This...
Up from the Liberal Founding
During the 20th century, scholars of the American founding generally believed that it was liberal. Specifically, they saw the founding as rooted in the political thought of 17th-century English philosopher John Locke. In addition, they saw Locke as a primarily secular thinker, one who sought to isolate the role of religion from political considerations except when necessary to prop up the various assumptions he made for natural rights. These included a divine creator responsible for a rational world for...
C.S. Lewis and the Apocalypse of Gender
From very nearly the beginning, Christianity has wrestled with the question of the body. Heretics from gnostics to docetists devalued physical reality and the body, while orthodox Christianity insisted that the physical world offers us true signs pointing to God. This quarrel persists today, and one form it takes is the general confusion among Christians and non-Christians alike about gender. Is gender an abstracted idea? Is it reducible to biological characteristics? Is it a set of behaviors determined by...
Adam Smith and the Poor
Adam Smith did not seem to think that riches were requisite to happiness: “the beggar, who suns himself by the side of the highway, possesses that security which kings are fighting for” (The Theory of Moral Sentiments). But he did not mend beggary. The beggar here is not any beggar, but Diogenes the Cynic, who asked of Alexander the Great only to step back so as not to cast a shadow upon Diogenes as he reclined alongside the highway....
Mistaken About Poverty
Perhaps it is because America is the land of liberty and opportunity that debates about poverty are especially intense in the United States. Americans and would-be Americans have long been told that if they work hard enough and persevere they can achieve their dreams. For many people, the mere existence of poverty—absolute or relative—raises doubts about that promise and the American experiment more generally. Is it true that America suffers more poverty than any other advanced democracy in the...
Related Classification
Copyright 2023-2024 - www.mreligion.com All Rights Reserved