As stated in the words of the theoretically mighty First Amendment, the Constitution of the United States declares that, “Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble.” Rothbard describes how Hamilton rejected decentralization of power as making the Union too weak, arguing that “we must establish a general and national government, completely sovereign, and annihilate the state distinctions and state operations.” A good example of how the Constitution may be used to further centralize power in the federal government is the interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment, which courts use to find a way around the clear words of the First Amendment by interpreting the Civil Rights Acts in exactly the manner prohibited—so as to abridge the freedom of speech. They believe, as Berger puts it, that “constitutional limitations must yield to beneficial results, a result-oriented jurisprudence that is a euphemism for the notion that the end justifies the means.” He gives the example of the constitutional lawyer Bruce Ackerman, who argued that a progressive Supreme Court—exemplified by its sprawling decision in Brown v. Board of Education—would serve the purpose of “confronting modern Americans with a moral and political agenda that calls upon them to heed the voice of their better selves.” Social engineering through race-craft may be Ackerman’s opinion of what would reflect the “better selves” of modern Americans, but the Constitution is not meant to be a charter for some citizens to turn their moral opinions into law.
Author: Wanjiru Njoya
Published at: 2025-12-30 23:30:45
Still want to read the full version? Full article
