Burning the Constitution
September 19, 2002

by Joe Sobran

     President Bush's apologists hail him for bringing 
"moral clarity" to the subject of terrorism. I hadn't 
really noticed much moral ambiguity about 9/11; most 
people seemed to think it was pretty awful even before 
Bush said so. My own impression was that, in the time-
honored fashion of political "leaders," he condemned 
terrorism unequivocally only because there was virtually 
no dissent. We can all talk tough when everyone agrees 
with us.

     Moreover, it sounds odd to use the words "Bush" and 
"clarity" in the same sentence. His normal manner is one 
of confusion. Gerald Ford can now enjoy his golden years 
in the assurance that his record for presidential 
befuddlement has been shattered.

     Bush doesn't speak much English. He relies heavily 
on the syntax-saving device of "about." This isn't 
"about" weapons inspection. It's "about" disarmament. 
That's what America is all "about." And so on. "About" 
can spare you the mental effort of constructing precise 
sentences. It's the next thing to a grunt. No wonder 
cartoonists tend to make Bush look simian.

     Bush has sworn to uphold a Constitution he hasn't 
taken the trouble to read. He has lawyers to read it for 
him and tell him what he wants it to mean. It always 
turns out to mean that he is entitled to have his way. 
Since Lincoln, many presidents have discovered that the 
Constitution is a charter for one-man rule. Bush stands 
in what is by now a long tradition.

     Fortunately for him, few members of Congress read 
the Constitution either. Otherwise he might be facing 
impeachment for usurping Congress's prerogative of 
committing the United States to war. Instead, we are 
hearing that Congress must "unite behind the president." 
The Founding Fathers would choke at such talk.

     All presidents, not just the really horny ones, 
should have to think about impeachment. It was meant to 
be a readily available method of removing public 
officials for misconduct, and not a rare and traumatic 
remedy akin to beheading a monarch. Considering how many 
criminal presidents we have had, the very infrequency of 
impeachment represents a grave failure of the American 
system. For one thing, it might have spared us a ghastly 
civil war. It might also have saved the Constitution.

     True, a few voices argue that Bush should get 
Congress's "support" before launching his war; but this 
is only a feeble, vestigial gesture toward 
constitutionality. Everyone understands that it's going 
to be his war; nobody suggests that he should be 
penalized for waging it without Congress's approval, let 
alone that declaring war is properly a congressional, not 
a presidential, initiative.

     Anyone who insists on observing the Constitution as 
written is apt to be accused of living in the past or 
trying to turn back the clock. But what is the 
alternative to keeping faith with America's founding 
document? I can think of only one: honest repudiation.

     Writing in THE GUARDIAN, a British newspaper, 
Jonathan Freedland draws remarkable parallels between the 
Roman Empire and the American Empire. Of course Americans 
think of their country as a democracy, and the term 
"empire" offends their self-image. But maybe it's time 
to come to terms with reality and square language with 
practice. America does have an empire, complete with a 
Caesar.

     Even some pro-war neoconservatives (if the phrase 
isn't redundant) are starting to speak of empire 
approvingly. What about their claim that Israel "shares 
our democratic values"? That presents no real problem; it 
would be more accurate to say that Israel shares our 
imperialistic values.

     Accordingly, Bush should make it official. He should 
formally declare that the United States is now an empire. 
This declaration should be accompanied by a ceremonial 
burning of the U.S. Constitution. It is no longer needed 
or observed, and its only provisions that are still 
honored are those that have to do with scheduling 
elections. Its limitations on the Federal Government are 
null and void.

     Burning the Constitution would indeed restore 
clarity to our public life. Better an honest empire than 
a bogus democracy (or, in the quaint language of our 
ancestors, republic). It would relieve us of intolerable 
and confusing double-talk, and might even help Bush 
himself understand what he is doing. Empire, he might 
say, is what our country is all about.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Read this column on-line at 
"http://www.sobran.com/columns/020919.shtml".

Copyright (c) 2002 by the Griffin Internet 
Syndicate, www.griffnews.com. This column may not 
be published in print or Internet publications 
without express permission of Griffin Internet 
Syndicate. You may forward it to interested 
individuals if you use this entire page, 
including the following disclaimer:

"SOBRAN'S and Joe Sobran's columns are available 
by subscription. For details and samples, see 
http://www.sobran.com/e-mail.shtml, write 
fran@griffnews.com, or call 800-513-5053."