Time: Wed Dec 10 20:34:50 1997 To: From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar] Subject: SLS: IMPRIMIS: "Four Points of the Compass" Cc: Bcc: sls References: <snip> > >IMPRIMIS >November 1997 >Volume 26, Number 11 > > >Four Points of the Compass: Restoring America’s Sense of Direction > >Balint Vazsonyi >Director, Center for the American Founding > ><italic> In this issue, a survivor of Nazism and communism describes the >genius of the American constitutional system. His remarks were delivered >on the Hillsdale College campus last month in a lecture sponsored by the >Department of History and Political Science, the Department of Economics, >Business, and Accounting, and the Center for Constructive >Alternatives.<italic> > >In his second Inaugural Address, President Clinton called for a new >Constitution. He borrowed language from the Declaration of Independence, >where, in 1776, Thomas Jefferson presented the argument for a new >government. While Mr. Clinton did not refer to the Constitution in so many >words, his meaning was clear. "We need a new government for a new >century," he proclaimed on January 29, 1997. Unlike our present >government, this new government would "give" a number of benefits to the >American people. > >We at the Center for the American Founding disagree. We believe that our >present form of government, as articulated in the Constitution, has brought >forth the most successful society in the history of the world. Indeed, the >country that was established here more than two centuries ago is one of a >kind. > > >America: One of a Kind > >No other country exerts its best efforts for the benefit of all mankind. >No other country will send its young into war without expectations of >territorial gain. No other country invites the men, women, and children of >the world to come here and become American—the appellation uniform to al >who live here. There is a unique American capacity for success, for >strength, for goodness. Yes—the United States of America is one of a kind. > >We say "one of a kind" and we think of Shakespeare’s plays, Beethoven’s >music, or George Washington’s character. We try hard to analyze them, but >the ingredients that make them unique are invisible. In the case of >America, the ingredients may be identified easily. They include the rule >of law, individual rights, and guaranteed property. > >Let us talk about ingredients. If we eat something memorable, we want the >recipe. With food, we know without the slightest doubt that the >ingredients determine the result. Chocolate ice cream, for example, takes >chocolate, cream, and sugar. If, instead, we use ground beef, mustard, and >"A.1." sauce, we scarcely expect chocolate ice cream to be the end product. > >The ingredients that have created America as we know it are being gradually >replaced. Is it reasonable to expect that the end product will nonetheless >remain the same? > >Over the past three decades the rule of law has been displaced by the >search for "social justice." Group rights and privilege make a mockery of >the constitutional rights of the individual. Where not long ago Americans >could feel secure in their right to acquire and hold property, government >today is no longer discussing whether—only how <italic>much<italic> of >it—to confiscate, and how to redistribute it. > >But the greatest variety of assault is launched against our common American >identity, that magnet that binds all of us together. Our existence as a >nation depends on it because the people of this country converged, and >continue to converge, from every corner of the globe. > >Identity is about being similar and being different. Since Nature has made >every one of us different, we have to agree about those aspects of our >lives that will make us similar. Other nations have a shared history; >Americans have successfully substituted a shared belief in, and adherence >to, certain principles. Our common language, English, took the place of a >uniform culture. In place of a state religion, a Bible-based morality was >taken for granted. If we add to this a certain work ethic, an expectation >of competence in one’s field of work (whether it requires splitting the >atom or sweeping the floor), a spirit of voluntary cooperation, insistence >on choice, and a fierce sense of independence, then we have the ingredients >of American identity. <italic>It is these ingredients that distinguish us >from other societies, and enable those who sweep the floor today to split >the atom tomorrow.<italic> > >Today, our nation’s leaders are engaged in choosing a path to pursue. Yet, >all along, we have had a path to <italic>follow.<italic> That path is >clearly pointed out in the Declaration of Independence. Our Founders >provided a superb road map in the Constitution of the United States. Add >to this the guidebook known as the <italic>Federalist Papers<italic> and it >is hard to see how we could have lost our bears—but we have. The unique >combination of ingredients we discussed earlier functions as our bearings. >They keep us on the path, they help us navigate the road map provided by >the Founders. Together, they constitute a kind of compass—the compass in >the title of these remarks. > > >The Rule of Law or Social Justice? > >Our compass was calibrated between 1776 and 1791. The rule of law became, >and should have remained, our "North Star." But now we have rule by the ><italic>lawmaker<italic>. Every member of the executive and the judiciary >has become a potential lawmaker and in most cases uses that potential to >the hilt. > >Yet the rule of law was intended to place its fundamental provision beyond >the reach of politics and politicians. Whereas it <italic>confers<italic> >legitimacy upon subsequent laws that spring from its eternal well, it ><italic>denies<italic> legitimacy to all legislative maneuvers that corrupt >its purpose. It holds the makers, executors, and adjudicators of the law >accountable at all times. Above all, it demands equal application to every >man, woman, and child. Nothing in the history of human societies can match >the significance and magnificence of equality before the law. > >The aspiration for equality before the law began with the Magna Carta, or >even earlier, in the legend of King Arthur’s court, where knights sat at a ><italic>round<italic> table. Eventually, Thomas Jefferson etched the >concept in the minds of freedom-loving people everywhere. But even after >those immortal words of the Declaration of Independence had been written, >it took most of two centuries before America, lad of many miracles, almost >made it reality for the first time. > >It was not to be. The rule of law came under attack just as it was about >to triumph. The attacker displayed the irresistible charm of the >temptress, the armament of the enraged avenger, dressed itself in >intoxicating clichés, and wore the insignia of the highest institutions of >learning. It called itself "social justice." > >Social justice is not to be confused with genuine concern for those who >suffer, which is a frame of mind, a noble sentiment, a measure of >civilization. The search for social justice provides a cover for the >destruction of our legal system by setting unattainable goals, by fueling >discontent, by insinuating a permanent state of hopelessness. > >Social justice is not a basis for stable society because, unlike the rule >of law, it is what anyone says it is on any given day. We need only to >move back a few years in time or travel a few thousand miles to find an >entirely different definition. It is an empty slogan, to be filled by >power-hungry political activists so as to enlist the participation of >well-intentioned people. > >The rule of law and a world according to social justice are mutually >exclusive. One cannot have it both ways. > >"Thou shalt know the tree by its fruit." The rule of law gave birth to >individual rights—in other words, rights vested solely in individuals. >Only individuals are capable of having rights, just as only individuals can >be free. We say a society is free if the individuals who make up that >society are free. For individuals to be free, they must have certain >unalienable rights, and additional rights upon which they have agreed with >one another. > > >Individual Rights or Group Rights? > >Social justice has spawned an aberration called "group rights." Group >rights are the negation of individual rights. Group rights say, in effect, >"You cannot and do not have rights as an individual—only as the member of a >certain group." The Constitution knows nothing about groups. Groups have >no standing in the eyes of the law. And, since so-called group rights are >invariable created and conferred by persons of temporary authority, they >are "subject to change without notice," as the saying goes, just like the >definition of social justice itself. > >Individual rights and group rights are mutually exclusive. Once again, one >cannot have it both ways. > >Among our individual rights, the right to acquire and hold property has a >special place. This right protects the weak against the strong and >balances inborn gifts with the fruits of sheer diligence and industry. >John Locke, Thomas Jefferson, and James Madison held that civilized society >is predicated upon the sanctity of private property and that to guarantee >it is government’s primary function. Without absolute property there is no >incentive, no security, no liberty. The freedom to enter into contract, >the freedom to keep what is yours, the freedom to dispose of what is yours >underlies all liberties. > >Neither the search for social justice nor group rights recognizes, or >respects, private property. They look upon individuals as faceless members >of a multitude who, together, create a certain quantity of goods. These >goods belong to what they call the "community." Then certain "wise" people >decide who needs what and distribute—actually redistribute—the goods. >These wise people came up with the word "entitlement." Entitlements are >based neither on law nor on accomplishment. Entitlements are based on >membership in a certain group, and we have seen that groups themselves are >designated by persons of temporary authority, rather than by law. > >The right to property and entitlements through redistribution are mutually >exclusive. I repeat: One cannot have it both ways. > > >American Identity or Multiculturalism? > >We have been ordered by the prophets of social justice to replace our >common American identity with "multiculturalism." One cannot fail to >notice the enormous importance the leaders of the social justice crowd >attach to the eradication of American identity. They insist on bilingual >education and multilingual ballots. They remove the founding documents >from our schools. They enforce anti-American history standards. They >banish the Ten Commandments. Add to this the replacement of American >competence with generic "self esteem" and voluntarism with coercion. >Consider the vast numbers of new immigrants who are encouraged to ignore >the very reasons that brought them to America in the first place. The list >goes on, and sooner or later the loss of a common American identity will >affect national defense, if it has not done so already. > >Will Americans lay down their lives if America is nothing but a patchwork >of countless group identities? > >Will the armed forces of the United States fight to uphold, defend, and >advance multiculturalism? > >The questions before us are serious and legion. We are virtually drowning >in "issues" that come at us like an octopus. Then, just as we tackle each >arm, the octopus turns into a turtle, tucked inside its impenetrable shell. > How do we respond? What positions do we take? And, once we figure out >our position, how do we argue its merit? > >We at the Center for the American Founding propose the "four points of the >compass" because we believe that our restored bearings will place us firmly >on the path of lasting success once again. After the distortions of the >past 30 years, we need to recalibrate our compass to point to the rule of >law, individual rights, guaranteed property, and our common American identity. > >As you have seen, these are interconnected, and they flow from one another, >just as the false compass points that have come to displace them—social >justice, group rights, redistribution, and multiculturalism—are >interconnected and flow from one another. What is multiculturalism if not >a redistribution of our cultural treasury? What is redistribution if not a >group right? What is a group right if not the implementation of some >political activist’s version of social justice? > >For 30 years, we have acquiesced in a stead erosion of America’s founding >principles. The time has come to reverse the process. Rather than >contending with countless individual issues, we need to take the debate >down a few notches, right to the core. We recommend that future >legislative initiatives be tested against the four points of the compass. >Does the proposed bill negate the rules of law? Does it violate individual >rights? Does it interfere with the guarantee of property? Does it >constitute an assault on our common American identity? Only if the answer >to each question is "no" should the proposal proceed and be judged on its >merit. We recommend applying the same test, a "do-no-harm" screen, to >existing statutes and regulations. There is much on the books that ought >to be repealed. In other words, let us weed the garden before planting a >fresh crop. > > >Reasserting the Authority of the Constitution > >In practical terms, how do we know what the rule of law can and cannot >accommodate, and how far do we take individual rights? The answer comes >from Article VI of the Constitution: "This Constitution, and the laws of >the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof...shall be the >supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound >thereby...." It is as uncomplicated as that. > >We are asking the citizens of this great nation and their representatives >at all levels to consider the proposed approach. We would like to engage >and incorporate the wisdom and experience of Americans everywhere. We do >not underrate the magnitude of the step we are proposing, but believe it >will make a difference. Through this simple device, it will become clear >that one cannot take an oath to uphold the Constitution yet support group >rights. One cannot take an oath to uphold the Constitution yet acquiesce >in the taking of property without equitable compensation. One cannot take >an oath to uphold the Constitution yet support measures that are clearly at >odds with the requirements of national defense. > >Some suggest that, in 1996, the country voted for bipartisanship. We think >the people said: "If you don’t give us a real choice, we won’t give you a >real election." A majority is eager to partake in a real debate about >reclaiming our original path versus making a clean and honest break with >the past. > >Those who, like President Clinton, feel that the time has come to change >the supreme law of the land should come forward and say so openly. >Instead, they talk abut a "living, breathing Constitution," which is simply >a cover for changing it piecemeal. Let us face the choices as they truly >are. We are the heirs of a remarkable group of men who, more than two >hundred years ago, had every reason to feel similarly overwhelmed by the >decisions they had to make. They knew people find it difficult to agree on >everything. Their response was to make very few laws, for they understood >that the fewer the laws, the broader the agreement. So they sought >agreement on core principles they held to be nonnegotiable. > >Today, we propose four principles that ought to be nonnegotiable. They >are, as we have seen, inseparable. We call them the "four points of the >compass." Together they can and will restore America’s sense of direction. > >..........< End of article >.......... > >Balint Vazsonyi’s career as a concert pianist spans four decades and as >many continents. He fled Hungary following the 1956 uprising and came to >the United States. Since then, he has continued to tour internationally. >He has also been a professor of music at Indiana University, dean of music >at Miami’s New World School of the Arts, and chief executive officer of >Telemusic, Inc. > >In 1996, as a senior fellow of the Potomac Foundation, he established the >Foundation’s Center for the American Founding. He currently serves as the >director of this Washington-based think tank. > >Dr. Vazsonyi holds a Ph.D. in history, and he writes frequently for such >publications as <italic>National Review<italic> and the <italic>Washington >Times<italic>, where he has been a regular columnist since 1996. > >Hillsdale College >33 East College Street >Hillsdale, Michigan 49242 >http://www.hillsdale.edu/ > >Imprimis is free upon request. Write or call 800-437-2268 > >------------------------------------------- > <snip>
Return to Table of Contents for
Supreme Law School: E-mail