Is Insisting on Following the Constitution “Too Dogmatic?”

At the Tenth Amendment Center, we hold to the following mantra.

“Follow the Constitution, every issue, every time, no exceptions, no excuses.”

Recently, I’ve had a couple of people tell me that’s “too dogmatic.”

OK, let’s consider this quote by Benjamin Franklin in an essay titled Morals of Chess.

“If it is agreed to play according the strict rules, then those rules are to be exactly observed by both parties; and should not be insisted on for one side, while deviated from by the other; for this is not equitable.”

So, was old Ben being too dogmatic?

Of course not. He merely insisted that if you want to play chess with another person, both parties have to follow all of the rules consistently. For instance, it’s not  “too dogmatic” to say a king is limited to moving one space in any direction.

Of course, a rule stating a king can move one space in any direction logically excludes all other movement. The rules don’t have to explicitly list every single illegal move. They don’t have to explain that a king may not move two spaces. Three spaces. Four spaces. Et al.

The rules prohibit anything imaginable not explicitly allowed.

But again, insisting on adhering to this in every instance isn’t “too dogmatic.” It’s just the game. Without the rules, the game pretty much ceases to exist. The rules make up part of the very essence of the game. To argues otherwise is quite frankly absurd.

The Constitution is the rulebook the American political system is supposed to “play” by. So, when I say follow it on every issues with no exceptions, I am merely saying.”Yo! Play the game right.”

I examine this idea more closely in my book, Our Last Hope: Rediscovering the Lost Path to Liberty. You can buy a copy HERE.

Tags: ,

No comments yet.

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: