An Old Conscience for New Conservatives

Did you recognize Martin Luther King's "We have a Dream" speech, slightly edited and shorn of specific race related expressions. This shows how he was expressing the best traditions of Americanism instead of some radical new idea. King was re-expressing the radical old idea that the freedom and dignity of human beings must be our first priority. For that the Dixiecrats claimed he was a communist!

*********************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************** As a preamble to our dreams, we must listen to the words of great Americans that constitute the basis, the heart, and the consequences of our renewed BULL MOOSE MANIFESTO. Guess the authors!

This is essentially a Peoples'....struggle for maintaining in the world, that form, and substance of government, whose leading object is, to elevate the condition of men--to lift artificial weights from all shoulders--to clear the paths of laudable pursuit for all--to afford all, an unfettered start, and a fair chance in the race of life. [T]his is the leading object of the government for whose existence we now contend.

That is the real issue...that will continue when these poor tongues...shall be silent. It is the eternal struggle between these two principles--right and wrong--throughout the world. They are the two principles that have stood face to face since the beginning of time: and will continue to struggle. The one is the common right of humanity and the other is the divine right of kings. It is the same principle in whatever shape it develops itself...that says, "You work and toil and earn bread, and I'll eat it." No matter in what shape it comes, whether from the mouth of a king who seeks to bestride the people of his own nation and live by the fruits of their labor, or for one race of men as an apology for enslaving another race, it is the same tyrannical principle.

The [Constitution] contains an enumeration of powers expressly granted by the people to their government. It has been said [by Jefferson and others, now for centuries] that these powers ought to be construed strictly; but why ought they to be so construed?

Is there one sentence in the Constitution which gives countenance to this rule? ...nor is there one sentence in the Constitution ... that prescribes this rule. We do not therefore think ourselves justified in adopting it.

What do gentlemen mean by a strict construction? If they contend only against that enlarged construction which would extend words beyond their natural and obvious import [against which "they" don't contend], we...should not controvert the principle.

If they contend for that narrow construction which, in support of some theory not to be found in the Constitution, would deny to the government those powers which the word of the grant, as usually understood, impart, and which are consistent with the general views and objects [in the Preamble] of the [Constitution]; for that narrow construction which would cripple the government, and render it unequal to the objects for which it is declared to be instituted ["...to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice,insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty...."] and to which the powers given, as fairly understood, render it competent; then we cannot perceive the propriety of this strict construction, nor adopt it as a rule by which the Constitution is to be expounded.