June 2, 2003
THE ONLY THING WE LEARN FROM HISTORY
A Constitution For Bureaucratopia, Part I (Porphyrogenitus, 6/2/2003)The members of the European Convention seem to have a self-esteem problem, because they felt it necessary to make sure everyone was Officially Grateful, within the body of the Constitution itself, for their efforts. They seem to have calculated that they wouldn't get any props unless gratitude towards them was Constitutionally mandated....
We hear all these reassurances that the member-states retain their sovereignty, but then there is this: The Member-States shall facilitate the achievement of the Union's tasks and refrain from any measure which could jeopardize the attainment of the objectives set out in this Constitution....
Limits are associated with the exercise of the rights of the people rather than the powers of the government in this Constitution....
Article I-10 then gives away the game, and demonstrates which entity has the sovereign position here. Assurances in public statements and media reports to the contrary notwithstanding, it is not the individual member-states, but the Union ("The Constitution, and law adopted by the Union's Institutions in exercising competencies conferred on it, shall have primacy over the law of the Member States").
I find it interesting that "Institutions" is capitalized, and that the legitimate source of law in this Union is rather vague ... These institutions could be anything. It could be a cabal of bureaucrats - and usually is....
In other words, the Union shall have power over only two things: domestic policy and foreign policy....
[I]t says in no uncertain terms that "Member-States shall actively and unreservedly support the Union's common foreign policy and security policy in a spirit of loyalty and mutual solidarity and shall comply with all the acts adopted by the Union in this area."... A Constitution that mandates what your attitude will be (unreserved support in a spirit of solidarity) is, well, I'm going to say it: Totalitarian in nature.
The United States of America adopted its Constitution 214 years ago. It was copied by one other country, Switzerland. These two countries are, it could be argued, the two most successful countries in history. Yet when European elites proceed to write a Constitution, which Constitution do they emulate? That of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.
In the comments to a recent post ("SELF-LOATHING NEVER WORKS"), Jeff Guinn suggested that we can be optimistic about Europe despite their secularism, because "maybe they will see what works, and emulate it." I responded, somewhat facetiously, that "seeing what works, and emulating it is a gift of the Holy Spirit." But I ask here in all seriousness: Doesn't the empirical evidence suggest that "seeing what works and emulating it" is precisely what Europe's secular elite is most unwilling to do? Might this not be connected to their secularism?
In Catholic theology, there is a profound conviction that all truth comes, ultimately, from God. This does not mean that atheists cannot find truth, for God is active in every heart and has implanted the desire for truth and love onto every heart. Atheists may believe they reject God, but they never do so entirely. But on this same Catholic view, openness to the truth is an outward correlate of an openness to Truth, i.e. to God whose spirit is the Spirit of Truth. There is a virtuous circle by which openness to Truth makes one more likely to find concrete truths, and vice versa the discovery of concrete truths leads one towards God; conversely there is a vicious circle in which as one rejects God one finds it ever more difficult to grasp even the most ordinary truths. Secularism blinds.
Most of you, no doubt, will regard the European elite's blindness and its secularism as mere coincidences. I see them as one more data point.