Daniel Webster on the Unconstitutional Evil of Conscription
G. Stolyarov II
- Published Content: 983
- Total Views: 385,630
- Favorited By: 38 CPs
- "Is this, sir, consistent with the character of a free government? Is this civil liberty? Is this the real character of our Constitution? No sire, indeed it is not. The Constitution is libeled. 
The people of this country have not established for themselves such a fabric of despotism. They have not purchased at a vast expense of their own treasure and their own blood a Magna Carta to be slaves."
A political giant of the 19th century and a firm proponent of American principles, Daniel Webster spoke in the House of Representatives on December 9, 1814, concerning a proposed draft during the protracted War of 1812.
- "Where is it written in the Constitution, in what article or section is it contained that you may take children from their parents and compel them to fight the battles of any war in which the folly or the wickedness of the government may engage it?"
Daniel Webster adhered to the principle of strict constructionism, a notion that we must urgently recall today, in the face of absurd, devastating, and, indeed, Orwellian excesses of our Congress and our government, as the recent twin bills, S 89 and HR 163, which would reinstitute conscription across the board, demonstrate.
Strict constructionism, in essence, declares that anything not explicitly specified in the Constitution as a power of the U.S. Government is off-limits to said government. The government's function is to protect the liberties enumerated in the Constitution, not to suspend them in the event of a declared "emergency" or a desire to "equalize the social classes."
The foe of the Constitution, and the prime framework under which the draft could have an aura of legitimacy, is the theory of broad constructionism, or "construction," as it was referred to in the jargon of the era. Broad constructionism, simply put, is the empowerment of the government with whatever authority is not explicitly forbidden to it by the Constitution. Webster illustrates the inextricable link between broad constructionism and tyranny:
A political giant of the 19th century and a firm proponent of American principles, Daniel Webster spoke in the House of Representatives on December 9, 1814, concerning a proposed draft during the protracted War of 1812.
- "Where is it written in the Constitution, in what article or section is it contained that you may take children from their parents and compel them to fight the battles of any war in which the folly or the wickedness of the government may engage it?"
Daniel Webster adhered to the principle of strict constructionism, a notion that we must urgently recall today, in the face of absurd, devastating, and, indeed, Orwellian excesses of our Congress and our government, as the recent twin bills, S 89 and HR 163, which would reinstitute conscription across the board, demonstrate.
Strict constructionism, in essence, declares that anything not explicitly specified in the Constitution as a power of the U.S. Government is off-limits to said government. The government's function is to protect the liberties enumerated in the Constitution, not to suspend them in the event of a declared "emergency" or a desire to "equalize the social classes."
The foe of the Constitution, and the prime framework under which the draft could have an aura of legitimacy, is the theory of broad constructionism, or "construction," as it was referred to in the jargon of the era. Broad constructionism, simply put, is the empowerment of the government with whatever authority is not explicitly forbidden to it by the Constitution. Webster illustrates the inextricable link between broad constructionism and tyranny:
Daniel Webster's speech was one of the principal factors in dissuading the U. S. Government from instituting a military draft during the War of 1812.