What an interesting turn-of-phrase. More and more those words are appearing, or something very similar in nature. In fact, they are so prevalent on the lips of politicians and bumbling bureaucrats these days that it makes one wonder if people ever "do the right thing" anymore or has all action been dwindled down to some invisible driving force?
Whenever someone admits that they had no choice but to do something, it implies that that the decision was made for them due to circumstance. We had no choice but to save the banks to prevent insolvency. We had no choice but to bail out the car companies because they are too big to fail. We the people weren't there, you see. We don't know the real story or else we would have voted the same as our representatives because we would have had no choice, either. We would have had no choice but to react.
The whole thing is pure nonsense. Any action by politicians when viewed in the rear view mirror seems like something preordained. So why is it that politicians never utter these words:
"We had no choice but to preserve and protect the United States Constitution."
Why is it that republicans, especially, don't have more Ron Pauls that look at things that way? For that matter, why don't the majority of republicans or democrats look at things that way? Voting in favor of what is constitutional is always the right thing to do because that is what the constitution is there for. That's why we have one. If we don't like the constitution in its present form then we can amend it. It gives every politician a reason to vote in favor of it which is just as good, if not better, than when they vote against it. This shows that constitutional idealism is practically dead in this country; replaced with unprincipled but very expedient power grabs and rampant mercantilism which is sure to destroy the country sooner rather than later.
The proof of the prevalence of socialist ideals in this country can be observed in the way friends, relatives and neighbors react when you adhere to the principles of the constitution. Just try it. Simply demean some political institution, like Social Security, as unconstitutional and watch how fast people come to its defense. Mention how the military marched into the Middle East unconstitutionally. See how that goes. Here's one, ask people to point to the area in the constitution that allows the federal government to spend money on schools or roads (unless you believe that all roads are postal roads). What about the constitutionally mandated money that we are supposed to use? Why aren't we using it? Chances are that such discussions will get emotional.
When presenting the argument of constitutionality, you will find the usual parroted explanations as to why things had to be done that were not constitutional. Well, if the solutions to our problems are political and unconstitutional, they must be socialist in nature, right? That makes those arguing for such solutions to be socialists - closet or otherwise. Lay that moniker on some flag-waiving patriot who demands his Social Security check and watch the red, white, and blue fireworks ensue. Also, try asking those same patriots, who find it helpful to their line of argument to dismiss the constitution as irrelevant, if that includes those parts of the contract that form the government of this country. You will find that you are no longer discussing constitutionality but, rather, the merits of a socialist democracy versus that of a constitutional republic.
If the "forced" choices made by politicians are not that of principled constitutionality (something that only the people can decide), then their actions can only be portrayed as socialist in nature, no matter how much they drone on about the founding fathers or even the constitution itself. The constitution was meant to be a measuring stick for the people against which they could compare legislative action in order to remain free and prosperous by focusing, not on the minutia of such action being right or wrong, but by simply judging something to be constitutional or not. This made things very easy because we the people did not have to become involved in the triviality of the excuses nor by the distracting squall of emotions. We could simply judge a law by its constitutionality.
Unless the people of this country are ready and willing to be principled and dismiss their socialist representatives (who can't seem to think constitutionally but must be compelled to decide via preordination), then we will always find ourselves at the mercy of politicians possessing a never-ending list of emotionally charged excuses with perpetual growth in government as a result.