True North

I’ve been struggling with how to put a positive spin on defeat of the resolution Jim Rugg and I introduced at the GOP State Central Committee meeting on Saturday. The non-binding resolution would have affirmed adherence of the Republican Party of Minnesota to the United States and Minnesota constitutions. Certainly kudos go out to the Executive Committee for making the resolution an agenda item and to the Chair for his fairness in presiding over the debate, allowing the issue to be decided by the delegates. And despite the resolution first being truncated and then voted down, that it was given a fair hearing before SCC delegates is all to the good.

Beyond that, however, I worry for my party.

The progenitor of the modern Republican Party Barry Goldwater famously reminded the nation “that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice,” but the State Central Committee of the Republican Party of Minnesota tepidly declared on Saturday that a public statement of adherence to constitutional government was somehow something the party should not do. Here’s the gist of the resolution the SCC voted against (after, by an amendment, eliminating #3):

Now therefore be itresolved that it is the sense of the Republican Party of Minnesota – 

1)    Elected officials and candidates endorsed by the Republican Party of Minnesota acknowledge that they will read, understand and support only legislation they believe conforms to the spirit and the text of the United States and Minnesota constitutions; and

2)    Elected officials endorsed by the Republican Party of Minnesota are obligated to the party to explain and discuss their constitutional rationale for any legislation they propose or support; and

3)    Constitutionality shall be the first criterion by which all current and proposed planks of the Standing Platform of the Republican Party of Minnesota shall be evaluated going forward.

Extreme stuff, there. So why was it voted down? The reasons are why I worry.

First, virtually everyone who spoke against the resolution, publically and privately, prefaced his or her remarks the same way: “I certainly support the spirit and intent of the resolution, but ….” Like the wannabe weightwatcher who will do anything to shed pounds except diet and exercise, Minnesota Republicans apparently will go to any extreme in defense of liberty that doesn’t actually involve accountability. None of the opponents of the resolution offered amendments to change or alter the language to make it more acceptable, despite declarations about spirit and intent. SCC opposition was to the idea of the resolution itself, patriotic declarations notwithstanding. Declaring we support the spirit and intent of the U.S. Constitution except when it is a barrier to implementing our political agenda is no virtue, irrespective of any noble intent.

Perhaps of all the debate, this is what I find most distressing: The first opposing speaker objected to the resolution because it would, in her opinion, prohibit the party from pursuing Prolife policies. I will write off the literalness of her comment to simply inarticulate expression, but the opponent’s main point was that Prolife policies were in conflict with the Constitution, and therefore the party cannot adhere to the Constitution. That is precisely the type of rhetoric that hampers the Prolife movement and the advance of the Republican Party. How can we Republicans expect to further a “Culture of Life” if the most ardent Prolife supporters believe our cause is unconstitutional?

A more thoughtful Prolife objection to the resolution was made along these lines:

The Constitution is silent, if you read the words, on the issue of abortion. The SCOTUS has read into it the “right of privacy” and constructed from that the “right” to an abortion, under certain conditions. Since the Constitution assigns to the SCOTUS the authority and duty to make these decisions, is Roe v. Wade constitutional, or not? Perhaps it is, or perhaps it runs afoul of the 5th, 10th, 13th or 14th amendments. What do we do when we read our “basic principles” as supporting two contradictory courses of action?

When principles appear contradictory, check your premises.Admittedly, it would be much easier to end abortion were it not for the Constitution and the Supreme Court. It would also be much easier for “the bad guys” to impose all the evils that we fear. Having an independent judiciary as the last line between freedom and tyranny is a pretty good thing. That said, courts can be wrong.

Lower court decisions are over overturned and affirmed all the way up to the U.S. Supreme Court, and despite the weight given to precedent, the Supreme Court will overturn its own rulings. Among the most notable examples is Brown v. Board of Education, which overturned the long-held constitutional principle of “separate but equal” accommodations expressed in Plessey v. Ferguson, and it did so without waterboarding the text or the spirit of the Constitution.

The SCC resolution talked about adherence to the “spirit and text of the Constitution, not blind obedience to the parchment document or to Supreme Court decisions. No matter how pure or impure one is on the Prolife issue, Roe v. Wade is open to criticism as a poorly reasoned decision that ought to be revisited. But therein lies the rub.

If Republicans are going to be the party that advocates for individual liberty and limited government, the party that stands for the fundamental constitutional principles of the primacy of individual sovereignty, the sanctity of private property, and preservation of the Rule of Law, then our objections to Court rulings must be based on constitutional grounds and not simply because we do not like the consequences.

The objection, which was also made in the context of the 3rd resolution (Constitutionality shall be the first criterion by which all current and proposed planks of the Standing Platform of the Republican Party of Minnesota shall be evaluated going forward), the objection that party members are not constitutional experts who should pass judgment on grassroots developed planks simply begs the question. Observing the spirit and even the letter of the resolution does not demand every Republican become a constitutional expert; it does demand, however, that every Republican consider the Constitution when advocating for specific policy. This is especially true for Republican-endorsed candidates and office holders.

If one were going to a Little League umpire, one would be expected to know the rules of baseball. If one were going to a Scout Master, one would be expected to know the Scout Law. Most of us have held jobs where we need at least a working knowledge of some sort of “Employee Handbook.”

The U. S. Constitution is the rule book, the law of the land and the job description of every elected federal official. The Minnesota State Constitution serves the same for the state. It is not too much, in fact it’s the bare minimum, to demand that elected officials have a working knowledge of those documents. As members of a political party endorsing people for elected office, we also have an obligation to acquire enough constitutional knowledge to endorse people for office who “will read, understand and support only legislation they believe conforms to the spirit and the text of the United States and Minnesota constitutions.” That is not too much to ask.

Pragmatic Reasons I Supported the Resolution

I supported the resolution for two pragmatic reasons. It will help the Minnesota Republican Party differentiate itself and win elections; it provides a platform for fighting violations of the text and spirit of the Constitution like those that were itemized in the resolution document.

There are no more fundamental conservative principles than the principles of individual sovereignty, private property and the Rule of Law as expressed in the U.S. Constitution. There is no more stark differentiation between Republicans and Democrats than their degree of respect and honor for that Constitution.

The resolution declares for all Minnesotans those principles and that differentiation. It provides a “warranty” on all Republican-endorsed office holders and endorsed candidates. It warrants that if a Republican-endorsee disregards the Constitution, the Republican Party will protect the party brand and, on that one issue, stand by the Constitution, not the party label.

Passing the resolution would not mean the Republican Party cannot support amendments to the Constitution or oppose Roe v. Wade and other judicial precedent. Nor does it mean that in the Republican Party there is no room for debate on constitutional questions.

To the contrary, this resolution declares that the amendment process is the proper way to alter the Constitution; judicial activism is not. Elected officials take an oath to “preserve, protect and defend” the Constitution of the United States. We citizens, we Republicans, have a duty to hold them to that oath.

Finally, the resolution does not bind any Republican to a specific constitutional position; however, it does bind Republicans to having a defendable constitutional position. It declares to a candid state and nation that the Minnesota Republican Party will “preserve, protect, and defend” the Constitution of the United States irrespective of party affiliation. That differentiation will help Republicans win elections. It gives the Republican Party a degree of integrity the Democrats cannot match.

The current GOP State Central Committee did not see it that way, but the seed was sown. As I have written before, the future political divide will not be between left and right, liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans; the political battle shaping up is between those who believe in individual liberty and those who would use the power of government to impose their personal vision on others. The battle lines will be drawn between those who inform their policy with the principles of individual sovereignty, private property and Rule of Law and those who would seek to impose their own “beneficent” brand of tyranny.

The 2008 election tells us on which side the Democrats come down. Republicans? After Saturday, I’m really not sure.

[Complete Resolution Text and comments]

---

Share this TRUE NORTH article with your social network now!