Les Enfants Terrible

COULD THE EU CONSTITUTION BE TOO SOCIALIST even for the French? Drudge is reporting that "all is lost" in regards to the upcoming French vote on acceptance of the document.

THE leader of France’s ruling party has privately admitted that Sunday’s referendum on the European constitution will result in a “no” vote, throwing Europe into turmoil.

“The thing is lost,” Nicolas Sarkozy told French ministers during an ill-tempered meeting. “It will be a little ‘no’ or a big ‘no’,” he was quoted as telling Jean-Pierre Raffarin, the Prime Minister, whom he accused of leading a feeble campaign.

The article further makes the case that if France does indeed vote against the contitution, the EU itself is in imminent danger of collapse. It seems, however, that it is not the socialist nature of the document that is driving the "vote no" campaign, but plain old French envy.

Because French voters consider that the treaty has already given too many concessions to Britain, ministers see no likelihood of the Government being able to put a renegotiated treaty to the country.

Wow. That whole EU thing turned out to be a flash in the pan.

We have posted on the nature of the document before, including this look at the "positive rights" aspect of it. About the only right that the EU constitution does not grant, is the right to challenge it's interpretation.

"Nothing in this Charter shall be interpreted as implying any right to engage in any activity … aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms recognized in this Charter or at their limitation."

Perhaps more noteworthy is left-leaning judicial activists in the U.S. who would like to see our own constitution reflect the EU's version.

"The touchstone is Franklin Roosevelt's "Second Bill of Rights," which would recognize a right to "a useful and remunerative job"; sufficient earnings to provide "adequate" food, clothing, and recreation; a "decent" home; a "good education"; and "adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health.

"The essence of the progressive constitutional project is to recognize "positive" rights, not just "negative" rights, so that citizens are not only guaranteed freedom from specified forms of government interference, but also are guaranteed the receipt of specified economic benefits.

Hinderaker broke it down with analysis in the Weekly Standard at the time, including this:

The whole problem, from the liberal perspective, is that they can't get democratically elected bodies to enact their agenda. As one of the Yale conference participants said: "We don't have much choice other than to believe deeply in the courts--where else do we turn?" The new, improved Constitution will come about through judicial re-interpretation.

Whether we like the ridiculous compromise on the filubuster or not, the successful nomination of conservative justices to the federal bench throws a wrench into the left's plans for a socialist eutopia brought about through judicial activism over the next 15 years.

Still, I find it a bit frustrating that even though we enjoy a majority, we are essentially forced into the role of forestalling socialism, rather than recovering from the already spreading cancer.