One of the movement's better-known adherents is Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. In 1995 he wrote an opinion for the 5-4 majority in United States v. Lopez, striking down a federal law banning guns in school zones. Thomas' position makes originalists such as Scalia look almost moderate by comparison. From the New York Times' article:

 ... most adherents of the Constitution in Exile movement are not especially concerned about states' rights or judicial deference to legislatures; instead, they encourage judges to strike down laws on behalf of rights that don't appear explicitly in the Constitution.

The greatest right of all, according to adherents of this movement, are economic rights, particularly the right to property, and anything that takes away those rights -- such as environmental or workplace safety laws -- are, or should be, unconstitutional.

Compare the "right to property" with those rights declared in the Texas GOP Platform, a blueprint for dominionism:

p.2 #17: "We reaffirm belief in the fundamental constitutional right of an individual to use property without governmental interference."

p.2 #10: "We oppose conservation easements on our natural resources administered by organizations unaccountable to tax payers and voters." (That means land trusts and conservation groups would be declared unconstitutional.)

p. 2 #18: "We oppose the Endangered Species Act."

p.2 #7: "We believe that groundwater is an absolute, vested right of the landowner."

P. 2 #13: "We oppose passage of any international treaty that overrides United States sovereignty including the Kyoto agreement and Biodiversity Treaty."

Cass Sunstein, a law professor at the University of Chicago has published a book on the Constitution in Exile movement called Fundamentally Wrong: How Extremists are Transforming the Courts and the Constitution. Sunstein explained to the New York Times that

success, as the movement defines it, would mean that ''many decisions of the Federal Communications Commission, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration and possibly the National Labor Relations Board would be unconstitutional. It would mean that the Social Security Act would not only be under political but also constitutional stress. Many of the Constitution in Exile people think there can't be independent regulatory commissions, so the Security and Exchange Commission and maybe even the Federal Reserve would be in trouble. Some applications of the Endangered Species Act and Clean Water Act would be struck down as beyond Congress's commerce power.'' In what Sunstein described as the ''extreme nightmare scenario,'' the right of individuals to freedom of contract would be so vigorously interpreted that minimum-wage and maximum-hour laws would also be jeopardized.

The Texas 2004 GOP Platform is very explicit in its disdain for a federal government that can regulate business:

Abolish the Bureau of Tobacco and Firearms, the position of Surgeon General, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Departments of Energy, Housing and Urban Development, Health and Human Services, Education, Commerce and Labor. We also call for the de-funding or abolition of the National Endowment for the Arts, and Public Broadcasting System.

note -The 2006 platform  is now on the web, but I can only access the preamble as of this writing. Both in the 2004 and 2006 preambles we find an innocuous sounding sentence:

" We believe that the future of our country depends upon a strong and vibrant private sector unencumbered by excessive government regulation.

Who can disagree with "a strong and vibrant private sector unencumbered by excessive government regulation?" But few people realize that eliminating the regulatory and social functions of the federal government, ie "unfettered" capitalism, opens the doors to theocracy. After all, who will step in and deal with the many problems those agencies were established to address? Christian Reconstructionism picks up where the Constitution in Exile movement leaves off. The churches would step in. And how will they govern?

Coming next week: what would a Reconstructed America look like?