Who killed the Constitution?

I wrote that I read the Constitution while I was on my blogging vacation. So I checked the public library for some recent material. There wasn't much. I recommended a book I'd seen at a conservative think tank, and my request was denied--I was told not many public libraries had that book so I should try Ohio State's Law School library. Too bad we're such a low level, low achieving community here in Upper Arlington reading only fiction, cook books and travel books. Anyway, I did find two interesting books at UAPL (most are actually on the amendments). "Who killed the constitution?" by Thomas E. Woods Jr. & Keven R.C. Gutzman, and "America's Constitution, a biography" by Akhil Reed Amar. Notice at the Amazon site the review by Scott Turow of the second title. This paragraph in his review is quite telling--at least it explains what most lawyers in Congress, the courts and the White House have been taught:

"In college, I was taught that the Constitution was essentially a reactionary document, a view that had become standard in the wake of the historian Charles A. Beard's epochal 1913 study, An Economic Interpretation of the Constitution of the United States. Beard had contended that the Declaration of Independence contained a broadly idealistic vision of American democracy premised on John Locke's notion that "all men are created equal." The Constitution, on the other hand, was meant to serve the interests of the wealthy; it subverted democratic ideals, especially with its odious compromise providing that each slave be counted as three-fifths of a person for purposes of determining the population upon which congressional districts would be based."

Who killed the Constitution? tells us on the first page that both the right and the left killed the Constitution, and then provides 12 interesting cases from the last century, some well known, others overlooked, that show having the federal government take over health care is nothing new (in actions). I'm only in the first chapter--Woodrow Wilson and Freedom of Speech, and given all the czars and plots afoot now feared by the right, and how unhappy the left was about the Patriot Act, it's really a wonderful way to begin.

Some of the hysteria against Germans in WWI is very instructive, especially in light of the very mild prejudice against Muslims today. There was terrible stereotyping--even though probably a third of Americans were of German ancestry at that time. My family lived in a community after WWII where many people still spoke German, and I remember the suspicion and prejudice that still existed well after the war. During WWI (remember, at first Wilson pledged to keep the U.S. out of war) sauerkraut became "liberty cabbage"--sort of makes you think of "freedom fries" a few years back when sentiment against the French was running high. Germans lost their jobs, changed their names, and some were beaten and killed. In Iowa and South Dakota using German in public was forbidden except at funerals. There were volunteer enforcement organizations and neighbors were encouraged to snitch (remember Obama's request in the summer?) A movie called "The Spirit of '76" got its makers a 10 year prison sentence for portraying the British in an unflattering light (they were our allies in WWI). The authors said they could write a book just on the outrageous suppression of free speech during that period.

So it was that climate that gave us the Espionage Act and the Sedition Act in 1917 and 1918. The first involved promoting the success of our enemies (if Bush had had that most Democrats in Congress would have gone to jail) and the second gave the postmaster enormous powers to remove things from the mails that he decided would hamper the war effort. Of course, "intent" as in hate speech, was one deciding factor. These acts didn't come under court scrutiny until 1919, after the war was over when the Supreme Court heard 3 cases.

One of those cases was Debs v. United States. Eugene V. Debs delivered a provocative speech in which he claimed, among other things, that the capitalists were responsible for the war fever, and that as usual the common man had never had a chance to express his own preference for peace or war. He was sentenced to 10 years in prison, and Justice Holmes upheld his sentence. Warren G. Harding who followed Wilson, finally freed him in 1921, saying "I want him to eat Christmas dinner with his wife." It's useful to remember Holmes was a liberal, Wilson a progressive and Debs a Socialist.

Obviously, the first amendment (Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech,) can be trampled today just like 1917 and 1918. Politicians haven't changed in 100 years.