I have a problem with the way people fetishize the Constitution.  I think it is a brilliant and remarkably durable document that deserves celebration, but for all that, it is not the be-all and end-all of politicial discussion.

At the time of the founding of this nation, the Constitution was a remarkable step forward from the agreements of the past, finding a delicate balance between the stability and creativity desired of a government, respecting the liberty of the citizens, and recognizing essential human dignity.  The Founders were wise in this, and wiser still in their recognition that an amendment process would be needed as they knew human knowledge would advance in time, leading to better understanding.

This makes me wonder why we automatically assume they knew better than we do, when the light of reason is as available to us today as to those fine men back now.  I have heard so many people tell me over the years we have to do things precisely as they did because they were so wise, but I think if they were alive today, they would see that modern society requires that we re-examine the wisdom they offered in light of our current circumstances and challenges.

The clearest indication of their fallacies is in how restrictive their defintion was of who should have access to liberty.  If you were white, male, and owned property, you were in good shape.  Otherwise, you were severely restricted in your ability to be involved in the state.  No person who believes in liberty can think of any person as three-fifths worth another based on the accident of their birth.  Yet this too was enshrined at the time of ratification, showing that great men are imperfect, and that the challenge to us is not to simply fetishize their work, but to identify the key principles and improve upon them in our time.

Liberty.  Free people making free decisions, being treated as individuals, with respect for their unique beliefs and circumstances, is the America we should seek.  We are not an agrarian society defined by one religion anymore.  To seek to return to that is to deny the progess that has been made.  As much as anyone, I understand the impulse to glorify some happy past, but we do better to look to the future with the questions of how we want to proceed, and with the Constitution as guide rather than gospel.

I truly believe this is how people must learn to talk and to think.  We must teach each other how to reason, how to think and observe intelligently, and demand more of ourselves and each other.  We cannot look for their work to save us; we must look to our own and to our best arguments.  I am not looking to reclaim an honored past; I'm looking to build a brighter future, and I hope that others will see the fight shouldn't be over paper, it should be over principle.

After all, the people who drew up the Constitution took a few tries, a war or two, and a lot of tries to get it right for themselves.  We shouldn't expect ourselves to be any different.
 


Comments

Amy Ludwig

Thu, 01 Apr 2010 08:45:16

I think when people uphold up the Constitution as high standard and something to value, it includes the 27 Amendments (like section two of the Fourteenth Amendment) as well as the original seven Articles.

The framework, as well as the amendment process you mention, is at the heart of what most hold dear regarding our Founders’ contribution to this country of ours. The Constitution is a document that strives to protect freedoms, limit the government, and yet is somehow small enough to be printed in its entirety in a pocket-size booklet.

Granted, there are some who may wave it around and use it in their daily discourse without having read it lately, but their attachment to it is not misguided. I think to call it a fetish is rather perverse, and the argument of people thinking it’s the “be-all and end-all” is not entirely true. Rather it frustrates and angers many when our government officials seem to disregard the Constitution and forego the amendment process, on both federal and state levels.

The Founding Fathers weren’t infallible, but they were remarkable. It’s true there are intelligent, enlightened people today, but our society’s “progress” has not all been beneficial in all areas. Our Constitution is more than the paper it is printed upon. It communicates principles that serve us well even today, and is worth the respect it has garnered.

 

Jesse

Thu, 01 Apr 2010 09:40:16

You sort of lost me on this one Tom. On the surface it reads like a typical Stephen Breyer diatribe. Is your beef with the idea of a constitution in general and the idea that we shouldn't be bound by "dead hands"? Is the amendment process too onerous for you? Or are you bothered by the substance of the document itself? If so, what specifically bothers you? Is something more contemporary like the Lisbon Treaty more to your liking?

 

Tom

Thu, 01 Apr 2010 11:22:26

I don't have any problem with either the substance or the principles of the Constitution. I support them fully. My issue is with how people regard the Constitution, treating it as a symbol without understanding of the principles that are behind the law.

As an example, I have attended a number of meetings of late where people supported things quite contrary to the idea of liberty as expressed in the Constitution, but found themselves supporting those concepts because a compelling speaker was paying lip service to the document itself.

In a larger sense, my big issue with this and other items, is when a symbol gains such adoration that we stop trying to understand it, and we start simply placing it as sacrosanct. The Constitution is a wonderful document, if you understand it, and if you reason for yourself.

It reminds me of people who simply accept a dogma wholesale, trusting who says it, and without thinking. This thinking is coming more heavily into the grassroots movements, as the same people who pushed through the Patriot Act are arguing that it was needed to defend the Constitution.

I have great interest in the Constitution, the law. I have significant unease about the Constitution, the symbol. People kill and die for symbols without understanding, just knowing that it means they are right. The document can stand on its own merits, and should be understood thusly.

 

Belle

Wed, 09 Jun 2010 00:20:34

Excellent article of March 31st and excellent clarifying comment of April 1st. These days too many scoundrels are trying to use the Constitution as cover in the very same way that too many scoundrels thump the Bible to achieve their own purposes. "Fetishize" is NOT too strong a word. Thank you!

 



Leave a Reply