The Simulacrum of Self-Government
By Mark Steyn
Wednesday, June 26, 2013 — just another day in a constitutional republic
of limited government by citizen representatives:
First thing in the morning, Gregory Roseman, Deputy Director of
Acquisitions (whatever that means), became the second IRS official to take the
Fifth Amendment, after he was questioned about awarding the largest contract in
IRS history, totaling some half a billion dollars, to his close friend Braulio
Castillo, who qualified under a federal “set aside” program favoring
disadvantaged groups — in this case, disabled veterans. For the purposes of
federal contracting, Mr. Castillo is a “disabled veteran” because he twisted
his ankle during a football game at the U.S. Military Academy prep school 27
years ago. How he overcame this crippling disability to win a
half-billion-dollar IRS contract is the heartwarming stuff of an inspiring
Lifetime TV movie.
Later
in the day, Senator John Hoeven, Republican of North Dakota and alleged author
of the Corker-Hoeven amendment to the immigration bill, went on Hugh Hewitt’s
radio show and, in a remarkable interview, revealed to the world that he had
absolutely no idea what was in the legislation he “wrote.” Rachel Jeantel, the
endearingly disastrous star witness at the George Zimmerman trial, excused her
inability to comprehend the letter she’d supposedly written to Trayvon Martin’s
parents on the grounds that “I don’t read cursive.” Senator Hoeven doesn’t read
legislative. For example, Section 5(b)(1):
Not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall establish a strategy, to be known as the ‘Southern Border Fencing Strategy’ . . .
On the other hand, Section 5(b)(5):
Notwithstanding paragraph (1), nothing in this subsection shall require the Secretary to install fencing . . .
Asked to reconcile these two paragraphs, Senator Hoeven explained that,
“when I read through that with my lawyer,” the guy said relax, don’t worry
about it. (I paraphrase, but barely.) So Senator Hoeven and 67 other senators
went ahead the following day and approved the usual bazillion-page
we-have-to-pass-it-to-find-out-what’s-in-it omnibus bill, cooked up in the backrooms,
released late on a Friday afternoon and passed in nothing flat after Harry Reid
decreed there’s no need for further debate — not that anything recognizable to
any genuine legislature as “debate” ever occurs in “the world’s greatest
deliberative body.”
Say what you like about George III, but the Tea Act was about tea. The
so-called comprehensive immigration reform is so comprehensive it includes
special deals for Nevada casinos and the recategorization of the Alaskan
fish-processing industry as a “cultural exchange” program, because the more
leaping salmon we have the harder it is for Mexicans to get across the Bering
Strait. While we’re bringing millions of Undocumented-Americans “out of the
shadows,” why don’t we try bringing Washington’s decadent and diseased
law-making out of the shadows?
Just when you thought the day couldn’t get any more momentous, the
Supreme Court weighed in on same-sex marriage. When less advanced societies
wish to introduce gay marriage, the people’s elected representatives assemble
in parliament and pass a law. That’s how they did it in the Netherlands,
Belgium, Spain, Norway, Sweden, Portugal, etc. But one shudders to contemplate
what would result were the legislative class to attempt “comprehensive marriage
reform,” complete with tax breaks for Maine lobstermen’s au pairs and the
hiring of 20,000 new IRS agents to verify business expenses for page boys from
disparate-impact groups. So instead it fell to five out of nine judges, which
means it fell to Anthony Kennedy, because he’s the guy who swings both ways.
Thus, Supreme Intergalactic Emperor Anthony gets to decide the issue for 300
million people.
As Spider-Man’s Uncle Ben so famously says in every remake, with great
power comes great responsibility. Having assumed the power to redefine a
societal institution that predates the United States by thousands of years,
Emperor Tony the All-Wise had the responsibility at least to work up the
semblance of a legal argument. Instead, he struck down the Defense of Marriage
Act on the grounds that those responsible for it were motivated by an “improper
animus” against a “politically unpopular group” they wished to “disparage,”
“demean,” and “humiliate” as “unworthy.” What stump-toothed knuckle-dragging
inbred swamp-dwellers from which hellish Bible Belt redoubt would do such a
thing? Well, fortunately, we have their names on the record: The DOMA
legislators who were driven by their need to “harm” gay people include
notorious homophobe Democrats Chuck Schumer, Pat Leahy, Harry Reid, Joe Biden,
and the virulent anti-gay hater who signed it into law, Bill Clinton.
It’s good to have President Clinton’s animus against gays finally
exposed by Anthony Kennedy. There’s a famous photograph of him taken round the
time he signed DOMA, at a big fundraiser wearing that black-tie-and-wing-collar
combo that always made him look like the maĆ®tre d’ at a 19th-century bordello.
He’s receiving greetings from celebrity couple Ellen DeGeneres and Anne Heche,
who’d come out as gay the week before and, in the first flush of romance, can’t
keep their hands off each other even with President Happy Pants trying to get a
piece of the action. For a man motivated only by a hateful need to harm gays,
he’s doing a grand job of covering it up, looking like the guy who decided to
splash out for the two-girl special on the last night of the sales convention.
Nevertheless, reacting to the Supreme Court’s decision, President Clinton
professed himself delighted to have been struck down as a homophobe.
In his
dissent, Justice Scalia wrote that “to defend traditional marriage is not to
condemn, demean, or humiliate those who would prefer other arrangements, any
more than to defend the Constitution of the United States is to condemn,
demean, or humiliate other constitutions.” Indeed. With this judgment,
America’s constitutional court demeans and humiliates only its own. Of all the
local variations through which same-sex marriage has been legalized in the last
decade, mostly legislative (France, Iceland) but occasionally judicial (Canada,
South Africa), the United States is unique in its inability to jump on the
Western world’s bandwagon du jour without first declaring its current vice
president, president pro tem of the Senate, majority leader, chairman of the
Senate Rules Committee, and prospective first First Gentleman raging
gay-bashers. As the Paula Deens of orientation, maybe they should all be
canceled.
There is something deeply weird, not to say grubby and dishonest, about
this. In its imputation of motive to those who disagree with it, this opinion
is more disreputable than Roe v. Wade — and with potentially
unbounded application. To return to the immigration bill, and all its
assurances that those amnestied will “go to the end of the line” and have to
wait longer for full-blown green cards and longer still for citizenship, do you
seriously think any of that hooey will survive its first encounter with a federal
judge? In much of the Southwest, you’d have jurisdictions with a majority of
Hispanic residents living under an elderly, disproportionately white voting
roll. You can cut-and-paste Kennedy’s guff about “improper animus” toward “a
group of people” straight into the first immigration appeal, and a thousand
more. And that’s supposing the administrative agencies pay any attention to the
“safeguards” in the first place.
As I say, just another day in the life of the republic: a corrupt
bureaucracy dispensing federal gravy to favored clients; a pseudo-legislature
passing bills unread by the people’s representatives and uncomprehended by the
men who claim to have written them; and a co-regency of jurists torturing an
18th-century document in order to justify what other countries are at least
honest enough to recognize as an unprecedented novelty. Whether or not, per
Scalia, we should “condemn” the United States Constitution, it might be time to
put the poor wee thing out of its misery.
No comments:
Post a Comment