“What is a
Constitution? It is the form of government, delineated by the mighty hand of the people, in which
certain first principles of
fundamental law are established.” Constitutional delegate William Paterson, author of the New Jersey Plan
What does the Constitution mean? What is its
purpose? Is it meant to be followed verbatim or is it a living document? With a
few inconsequential exceptions, all Americans revere the Constitution. But people see it differently. Very differently.
National Constitution Center |
Perspectives on the Constitution generally fall into
two classes.
The first group sees the Constitution primarily as a
set of hard rules to restrict government action. They endorse the Framers
intent to harness government with balanced powers, potent checks, enumerated powers, powers unspecified being reserved to the states, and with the people
reigning supreme. The Bill of Rights is viewed as further restrictions on
government action. Rights are unalienable
individual rights. Changes to the Constitution should be made per the
prescribed amendment process. Meaning is determined by looking to the original
document and the Framers’ intent.
The second group views the Constitution proper as a malleable outline of government organization. They tend
to see this base document as a vehicle to carry a Bill of Rights, believing that protecting rights is the primary purpose of a constitution. They place greater emphasis on collective
rights to make life fairer. This group sees the Constitution as a government
guarantee of rights, and these rights can and should be expanded whenever
injustice is encountered. The judiciary is the fairest agent to change the
Constitutional through interpretation of the instrument as a living document.
Each group venerates the Constitution, but
is it any wonder that they so often find themselves in disagreement. One sees the Constitution as a safeguard against government tyranny, the other views the
Constitution as protection against unfair treatment by other citizens. One sees government as the threat, the other sees threats all around that only the
government can thwart.
This Dichotomy is why it’s so difficult to have a rational
conversation about the Constitution. These two views never intersect. It’s why some
see grave constitutional violations, while others see nothing improper.
Which
is right? Some might say it depends on what kind of country you want. This is an
error. The Framers did not want the country to remain in 1787, they wanted to protect
against human lust for power. They knew the country would evolve and change and
they built a system to accommodate change controlled by the people. A living
Constitutional approach may temporarily build a more just society, but as the requisite
power becomes ever more concentrated, those who wield this unchecked power will thwart
idealistic goals. The desired society will soon be trampled. Power and retention of this vast power will become far more important than the people out
in the hinterlands.
The Framers did not hate government, they feared an overly powerful government. The Framers did everything their intellect
could conjure to insure that an elite coterie would never become ensconced as rulers.
Their system generally worked for two and a quarter centuries.
What would be the basis to judge them wrong?
No comments:
Post a Comment