IN DEFENSE OF THE CONSTITUTION

Dear Harry,

Thank you for responding so quickly to my column. Your obvious
concern for what I had to say wasn't a big surprise either. And, even
though I have never met you, everything I have ever heard about you
indicates that you, too, are an "intelligent, good-hearted,
well-meaning person who has done a great deal of good for the cause
of liberty." You are no doubt a very sincere person, Harry. But I
believe in the areas of this dialogue, you are sincerely mistaken.

The drug war To begin, I think you have mischaracterized the nature
of the Constitution Party's position on the drug war. By dismantling
federal laws and punishments and leaving such things to the states,
it effectively ends the drug war. If any state wants to criminalize
drugs, whether you like it or not, that is its right under the 10th
Amendment - so long as they do not violate other provisions of the
Constitution.

I find it particularly appalling that you would make the assertion
that "the Constitution Party is unwilling to say flat-out that it
opposes this terrible war." Indeed. That is precisely what
Libertarians say about abortion - it's not a federal matter, leave it
to the states - the Libertarian Party is not willing to say flat-out
that it opposes abortion. More about the abortion topic later, but
for now, suffice it to say that this selective use of the 10th
Amendment on your part is illogical and inconsistent. Moreover, it
suggests that the freedom to take drugs is more important to
Libertarians than protecting the lives of unborn children. If that is
your position, it is disgraceful.

Finally, on the drug war, you dedicated several paragraphs to
attempting to discredit the Constitution Party's position of
protecting our national borders from drug traffic. You made your
feelings on this point most clear when you said:

In other words, it's OK for the federal government to keep foreign
cars out of the U.S., because any state can produce its own cars if
it wants to. It's OK for the federal government to decide which drugs
can come into the country and which can't, even though there is
nothing in the Constitution granting the federal government such
authority. It's OK for the federal government to "protect" our
borders by defining "protection" as prohibiting the importation of
anything politicians take it in their heads to prohibit.

This is not constitutional thinking. It is weaseling, in order to
appeal to any conservatives who aren't ready yet to abandon their
desires to use government to enforce their own moral thinking on
others.

This apparently will come as a surprise to someone so knowledgeable
as yourself, Harry, but the Constitution most definitely does grant
this authority to the federal government in Article 1, Section 8 of
the U.S. Constitution. Among several relevant items, let me cite item
3, which states, "[Congress shall have the power] To regulate
commerce with foreign nations, and among the several States."

Regrettably, our government has also misused this same provision in
the Constitution to wage the drug war on its own citizens. However,
most reasonable people should be able to see that as long as a state
does not export or import drugs, the federal government has no lawful
basis for meddling in this issue with the states.

But it is equally clear that the Constitution most definitely does,
contrary to your assertion, give the federal government precisely the
power to determine what does or does not cross the national borders
of these United States. Additionally, I call to your attention the
Preamble to the Constitution:

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect
union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for
the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the
blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and
establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

In their wisdom, the founders gave us our Constitution for the
above-mentioned reasons - including giving the federal government the
right to regulate commerce with foreign nations. So, though you may
not agree with everything the Constitution stands for, Harry, I will
prefer their wisdom over the Libertarian Party's wisdom any day of
the week. More to the point, "the Libertarians have applied the
principles of liberty and the Constitution" neither consistently nor
correctly.

Abortion I am glad to see that you are opposed to abortion. It is
regrettable to see, however, that your politics do not match your
convictions.

You make the point that "although 'murder is universally recognized
as wrong,' abortion is not universally recognized as wrong or as
murder." I certainly would agree with you on this point but, in doing
so, I would note that just because the multi-billion-dollar-a-year,
baby-butchering business has done a good job of convincing Americans
that it is morally acceptable to exercise the "choice" to rip their
babies apart limb-by-limb =F1 simply because they are inconveniently
located in their mother's womb =F1 does not mean that doing such an
abominable thing is morally justified. And if our politics do not
reflect our convictions, Harry, then what good are they?

You went on to assert that, "Every day you spend trying to get
government to do something about abortion is a day wasted, a day that
could have been spent doing something effective. ... " I don't think
so. So long as this issue is in front of the American people, they
are going to have to confront their own thoughts and feelings about
this atrocity.

You then asked the question, "Where in the Constitution is the
federal government given the authority to legislate on abortion - or
even murder?" Surely you are aware of that other great document of
our founding entitled the "Declaration of Independence"? In that
document are the words:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created
equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain
unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the
pursuit of Happiness.

"Created" equal? The unalienable right of "life"? Apparently not
under current Libertarian thinking.

You cannot read the Constitution and ignore the other founding
documents, Harry. The Constitution is designed to protect the rights
found in the Declaration of Independence by putting a leash on the
government and carefully defining its proper role.

And, once again, you engage this unbecoming selective hypocrisy of
falling back on states rights to justify allowing abortion when you
say:

My approach to the presidency was quite different. I am anti-abortion
and anti-government. As president, my anti-abortion feelings would be
irrelevant, because the federal government has no authority to deal
with common crimes in any way. But my anti-government feelings are
all-important; they mean I won't make the mistake of allowing the
federal government to enter this area - or any other area not
authorized by the Constitution - and mess it up even more.

In other words, you won't make any attempt to stop the
state-sanctioned murder of unborn children but you earlier made it
quite clear that you have no problem with preventing states from
legislating against drugs. You can't have it both ways, Harry. Make
up your mind.

=46inally, I would remind you that prior to Roe vs. Wade - a decision
widely considered to be judicial activism at its worst - abortion was
generally understood as murder, and performing such a procedure was
illegal. That was a mere 30 years ago in our nation's 225-year
history - we have regressed as a nation, not progressed. And it will
take principled leadership to show the American people the way out of
this degenerative malaise that we have blundered into.

Merging the parties Finally, we come to what I found to be the most
surprising of your responses to my column, in reference to my plea to
consider joining together. You said:

I understand your intentions, but I believe you have things backward.
The Libertarian Party is a much larger party, much more successful in
influencing public opinion, runs far more candidates, and pulls far
more votes. Neither party is anywhere near as successful as you and I
would like. But it is the Libertarian Party that has made a name for
itself with the public and is leading the fight to bring back liberty
to America.

Indeed. This almost has the ring of a petulant child insisting that
since he is the bigger kid on the block, that things must be his way
or nothing. This sort of petty snobbery is unbecoming and unwarranted.

I made a plea to the leaders of these two parties to see if they
could not find enough principled middle ground to leverage the many
similarities that exist between them into a more powerful combined
organization. Just as is the case with every other independent
national party, the Libertarian Party is but a mere splinter of
lumber compared to the huge blocks that comprise the Democrats and
Republicans - perhaps one of the larger splinters, but a splinter
nonetheless. What I proposed was that if the two parties could find
enough acceptable middle ground, they could turn two splinters into a
baseball bat.

You see, Harry, even after all the years and work, the Libertarian
Party is unable to woo the huge block of Christian conservative
voters that make up the Republican Party - abortion has much to do
with that. And let's face it, you may be the biggest splinter among
splinters (assuming the Reform Party disintegrates), but even with
all of your personal charm and savvy, you couldn't even pull 5
percent of the presidential vote.

Moreover, given how much is now at stake in our national elections, I
would think a real leader - such as you seemingly fancy yourself to
be - would not be as hasty to close off his options so quickly. A
real leader would be willing to consider the possibility that maybe
he or she has made some miscalculations in their political philosophy
and make the necessary adjustments. A real leader would put his or
her pride and ego aside if necessary to fulfill the obligations he or
she bears for the greater good and the people whom they represent.

What kind of a leader are you, Harry Browne?