In Defense of the Constitution

By George W. Carey

Book Overview

"In Defense of the Constitution" refutes modern critics of the Constitution who assail it as "reactionary" or "undemocratic." The author argues that modern disciples of Progressivism are determined to centralize political control in Washington, D.C., to achieve their goal of an egalitarian national society. Furthermore, he contends, Progressive interpreters of the Constitution subtly distort fundamental principles of the Constitution for the precise purpose of achieving their egalitarian goals. It is in their distrust of self-government and representative institutions that Progressivists advocate, albeit indirectly, an elitist regime based on the power of the Supreme Court--or judicial supremacy. Key elements and issues in this transformation of the original republic into an egalitarian mass society are thoroughly examined. George W. Carey is Professor of Government at Georgetown University and editor of The Political Science Reviewer.

• Format: Paperback
• Language: English
• ISBN: 0940973030
• ISBN13: 9780940973039
• Release Date: January 1989
• Publisher: James River Pr
• Length: 153 Pages
• Weight: 1.11 lbs.

Customer Reviews

Shocking, repellant, more anxiety than a Hollywood thriller

Carey's voice is a squeak in the deafening redefining din of America's Founding, but a voice desperately needed concerning one of the half-dozen most lethal threats to the United States. To those of us in fields that make sense with nature as the final judge, it's beyond comprehension and utterly embarrassing that such intellectual train wrecks could even happen among members of our own species, intentionally, and initiated by what we term the "well educated". This book blew me off my chair as page after page Carey pealed back seemingly harmless, subtle, minor changes in Constitutional interpretation, readings of The Federalist, and reverse casting of what Madison, Hamilton and the others stated ever so clearly in English. We find Constitutional "progressives", decades before Postmodernism, could state whatever they liked regardless of fallacy, from which to stage their attack on the Constitution, Founders, and basis of intelligent governance, sharpening their "higher values", with the power to accumulate enough internal damage to eventually tumble this Republic. Early salvos were fired from selectively excerpting The Federalist, delivering the message that Publius was a battleground between Madison and Hamilton, when a full reading of The Federalist shows both clearly agreeing with the other. If even The Federalist harbored disagreements over the Constitution (which it didn't) then we may make anything we like of their resulting document. Carey makes it clear there were disagreements after ratification, notably between Hamilton and Madison over the national bank, for which a number of reasons are offered - e.g. that Madison was playing politics for personal gain. Carey also notes state-centric Anti-Federalists in opposition to a more national view proposed by Federalists. And on a variety of matters the Founders intentionally left only structure and process, through which prudence and good sense could arrive at reasoned decisions - a structure now nearly dismantled. But to claim there should be no controversy would be to cast human nature and valid critical thinking as something it can never be for divisive agendas. Of greatest gravity to Carey is our Supreme Court's usurpation of power in violation of the Founder's intent, expectation and express definition by Hamilton. Anti-Federalists warned, "From this court there is no appeal" (but by amendment), so they pushed for a Bill Of Rights to "limit government", as did Jefferson, who later convinced Madison (which he had the power of personality to do). Hamilton argued against such a Bill because a definition of rights abrogates those not defined; definitions free from evasion are impossible; and contrary to intent such definitions expand a roll for enforcement, i.e. by the National government, precisely an entity they desired to curb. Informed by their knowledge of Rome, Federalists felt the danger was Congress, not the Court, thus they divided it. Ironically, what the Bill Of Rights created