Why the Constitution Is Relevant Today
There has been a great deal of discussion in the United States about the Constitution — despite the fact that it was promulgated over two centuries ago — and whether it is relevant to contemporary America. I’d like to remark briefly on this.
The founders of the United States were not merely technicians setting up an administrative framework and a set of rules. They had pondered long and hard over the lessons of long-term history as to why republics had always seemed to fail and how governments had tended over time to become tyrannical.
From this study, debate, and analysis, their most important conclusion was that human beings could not be trusted with power. Those who had power — at least many or most of them — would misuse it to make themselves wealthy; to order around others; to hold onto office; to increase their authority; and to benefit themselves, their friends, and their supporters.
What was the solution? Their unanimous conclusion was that two safeguards were needed:
1. To divide power among as many institutions as would be possible without paralyzing government. On the federal level this meant there was a division among the executive, legislative, and judicial branches. Each of them had a large measure of independence and could check the others if they went too far.
Equally, power was divided among the federal government and independent state and local authorities.
2. To limit government, leaving the maximum amount of freedom in the hands of individuals.
These two strategies were tremendous innovations. While in need of some adjustment over time, this was basically to define the precise boundaries in each case, not to transform fundamentally the structure as a whole. The history of the past two centuries — and especially the twentieth century — showed just how right they were in this plan.
For example, Communism came up with the idea of being even “more” democratic, placing power in the hands of the “proletariat.” But as the founders of America could have told them, in the end this just meant giving absolute power to those who claimed to be the representatives of the masses, and in particular a man named Joseph Stalin.
Those who ask whether the Constitution is relevant to contemporary America know as much about real freedom as they do about fornication. The Constitution is an amazing document and has been grossly manipulated over the years. For all far-left liberals (socialists/communists) and most progressives, the Constitution is the only thing standing in the way of their desire to have the Federal Government control every aspect of our lives. According to the liberals, the Federal Government must take care of everything, from health care and education, to giving us our mortgages (through Fannie and Freddie) and telling us what we can and cannot eat, or how much energy we can use. In exchange for this, we give up all of our freedoms that were given to us under the Constitution.
Well, no more. This is where it stops. America has wised up to the game liberals and progressives are playing and it took Obama, Pelosi, and Reid to show how dangerous these people can be. Remember, a huge bill like Obamacare, which never had a majority of support in the nation, was passed in the Senate not through an up-or-down vote, but through something called “Reconciliation,” a parliamentary move that had nothing to do with the will of the people. Even though the American public was obviously opposed to this legislation, one political party, the Democrats, were determined to impose their will on the entire country. This is what the Constitution tried to stop and what would have made the Founding Fathers scream in protest.
It’s about time we came back to the document that has served us so well for almost 225 years. You know liberals have lost the argument whenever they say the Constitution “Doesn’t matter anymore.” Perhaps, then, all the many useless laws the liberals have put on the books should not matter anymore. If we’re going to disregard the basic laws that run our government, why don’t we just ignore the laws created by the liberals? To ignore the Constitution is to invite anarchy in this nation, which is probably what the far-left wants.
The Constitution was fatally flawed, from the beginning. This was specifically pointed out in several articles by the anti-Federalists at the time. No court in Great Britain had the power to declare any Act of Parliament un-Constitutional. The only basis for voiding an Act was the Common Law prohibition of any law void for vagueness. Even at that, any decision of a British Court could be overruled by the House of Lords. When Jefferson acquiesced in the Marbury decision (which was cleverly formulated to give him what he wanted, although assuming the power to do so), the whole thing was over — just took a long time to play out. Acton said the “Constitution was all sail and no rudder”. I believe the powers assumed by the Federal courts was what he might have been referring to.
Mr. Rubin – with all due respect your article misses the fundamental point – the Constitution is supremely relevant because it is a CONTRACT. Whereby, the States agreed to give up certain of the God given Rights in exchange for the common good (weal).
The Document was in turn ratified (agreed to or a meeting of the minds in contract parlance) by state conventions of Citizens who like wise agreed, by virtue of their vote in the affirmative, to give up their God given rights as set forth in the Declaration.
Therefore the body of the Constitution means what it meant on June 21st, 1788 when New Hampshire became the ninth and final (necessary) state to do so. After that date the only LEGITIMATE way to change it is Article V of said document.
If one is confused as to the exact meaning of those words, as the Framers used them, the first place one should turn is Noah Webster’s 1828 American Dictionary, http://1828.mshaffer.com/d/word/federal, and also the Federalist and the Anti-Federalist papers.
For example:
FED’ERAL, a. [from L. faedus, a league, allied perhaps to Eng. wed. L. vas, vadis, vador, vadimonium. See Heb. to pledge.]
1. Pertaining to a league or contract; derived from an agreement or covenant between parties, particularly between nations.
The Romans, contrary to federal right, compelled them to part with Sardinia.
2. Consisting in a compact between parties, particularly and chiefly between states or nations; founded on alliance by contract or mutual agreement; as a federal government, such as that of the United States.
3. Friendly to the constitution of the United States. [See the Noun.]
The long and short of this is that “We the People” have had our rights and power temporarily usurped due to out own negligence. You are witnessing the process of “We the people” reasserting our God given rights ………………as our contract demands.
I’ve noticed two things about the liberal arguments, especially after a couple of telling callers on the Limbaugh and Levin shows: Firstly, they seem totally incapable of believing that the Constitution should be interpreted at face value, that the Founders meant just what they said. Everything has to be “interpreted” and mined for hidden meaning. Second, they live for the present. Anything over 10 years old cannot possibly have any meaning in our “modern” life, especially if it puts a crimp in their style.
Rush brought up another very important point the other day: given that the Constitution is the legal basis for all U.S. government authority, if the Constitution is “living and breathing” and “a dead document” (although how it can be both is beyond me) and irrelevant to our current times, then all of the laws which Congress passes are also “flexible” and can be interpreted as we see fit. Which is, perhaps, their ultimate goal.
“If one is confused as to the exact meaning of those words, as the Framers used them, the first place one should turn is Noah Webster’s 1828 American Dictionary …”
Why is that? It can’t really tell you what the Framer’s meant because it was compiled 50 years later; the meanings of words can change radically in a short period of time. It would probably be more useful than a modern dictionary, but it is hardly authoritative. The Framer’s certainly didn’t consult it!
A better reference would be the OED, which gives the historical usages of words back as far as researchers can discover them. Even better would be some kind of common legal reference that the Framer’s would have been familiar with.
It still baffles me that people, today, cannot see this administrations actions as plain old communism!
What are they teaching in schools about history? Has communism been labeled a forbidden term like so many other terms in the english language? And must not be discussed in public?
They MUST think ‘socialism’ is good because of all the “social networking”.
I guess they won’t be satisfied until they can show that America can regress from the most intelligent, advanced society, to the dumbest, most perverted, and inane ‘society’.
“In September I asked a class of over 300 students (at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, campus where I taught) how many had learned anything about repression in Communist countries in high school. Not one hand was raised.” I also asked how many had heard the word “Gulag” — four of them had.”
— Paul Hollander, “From the Gulag to the Killing Fields,” note 2 to Introduction.
Big Tom is very disappointed with our current education system. If the politicians are so intent on finding a solution to the poor levels of education some of our students receive, today, then why don’t they ‘fix’ our educational system, instead?
jaafar, I thank you for sharing your information and source material.
What I find interesting about this whole episode is that the constitution wasn’t controversial among the left until the GOP decided to make it a cause. Remember “Bush is shredding the constitution”? Like petulant children, they suddenly discover that they’re against it simply because the grownups are for it.
Heh, no kiddin’. You’d think the Constitution was the supreme law of the land.
That means neither what we call today “liberalism” or “conservatism” is innately correct. It depends on the circumstances.
Technically, “conservatism” is almost always the best way because conservatives look to what historically works. “Conservative” isn’t the opposite of “libertarian” (actually, anarchy would be the furthest right-wing philosophy), socialism is. See particularly The Pournelle Political Axes (noting that he reverses the traditional U.S. “left”-”right” orientation in his diagram).
Barry, I agree with the vast majority of your essay. However, I no longer believe in the “innocence” of the leftists in this country, no longer believe that they simply see things “differently” or “interpret” facts in a different manner.
I now firmly believe that there is a concerted effort to “tear down the system” and that the true intent of leftism is being hidden and disguised, kept from view and that the lapdog media is running interference for this effort.
The Constitution is under attack precisely because it does what you say it does. Leftists do not want a “balance” of power, they want a seizure of power.
Obedience to a Constitution that protects a system they wish to overthrow necessarily means, they must toss aside the very elemental nature of the Constitution itself.
Unless and until we are willing to look seriously at what such an effort might look like and how it overlays with the words, deeds, acts and efforts of leftists in America today…we will be peer pressured and brow-beaten into submission, not wanting to be ridiculed, lampooned and slandered…as “tinfoil hat wearers”, “McCarthyites”, and conspiracy theorist nutjobs.
But, that’s EXACTLY what people who want to tear down the system and hide their intentions would say.
It’s high time we decide as a People whether this country, whether this system, whether this Constitution is worth defending. Against all enemies of it…foreign AND domestic.
I now firmly believe that there is a concerted effort to “tear down the system” and that the true intent of leftism is being hidden and disguised, kept from view and that the lapdog media is running interference for this effort.
Yes – we are all haunted today by Antonio Gramsci’s ghost. This destructive cultural meme, as bad as it is, becomes far, far worse when it has been hijacked by the will-to-power driven monsters for their own purposes. And that’s exactly who operates today behind the scenes in the 0bama regime. 0bama himself is a nobody – nothing more than a jumped-up lawn jockey on one of George Soros’ estates.
I now firmly believe that there is a concerted effort to “tear down the system”
Of course there is. A person has to be ignorant, willfully blind, or complicit in the act to deny it.
The evidence is overwhelming.
Two points; The genius of our Constitutional system is not “balance” as stated by the author, but instead tension between the separate branches. They are not designed to work together in a state of balance, but to check each other. The resulting tension if one oversteps its authority is the check that keeps one from being overpowering the others.
Also, in the late 19th/early 20th century, if you consider carefully, the industrial/corporate entities that were dominating markets and oppressing workers, you will find they were engaged in partnerships with government and regulators, giving them advantage over free market concerns. (See Burton Fulsoms “The Myth of the Robber Barrons” for a well researched exposé.)
Right, Walter. Where in our Constitution or Bill of Rights can you find “BIPARTISANSHIP”?
Yes, indeed.
Mr. Rubin makes several fallacious arguments, not the least is, as you mention here, they myth that big business wants free markets. He misses the distinction between a market entrepreneur and a political entrepreneur. He misses that under the Constitution, there was no government to BUY until the various government folks overstepped their authority. That the biggest and most successful companies were the innovators and highly efficient. As detailed in Fulsom’s book, it was the inept and block-headed companies that sought regulation TO PROTECT their ineptitude (aka, a form of merchantilism).
And before someone chimes in with the old bromide about “union busting”, be aware of the facts, conveniently neglected by historians, that the unions were engaging in mayhem, arson, sabotage and “Ludditism” on COMPANY property (AKA Criminal Trespass) much like the SEIU engages in today and has been a union hallmark for over 150 years. Unions have as much right to form as en employer has to tell them to take a hike.
IOW, that “regulation” Mr. Rubin is so fond of has led to union thuggery as a legal cartel. Also, that regulation has led to a complete bastardization of the “Commerce Clause”, which was put in place to MAKE REGULAR interstate commerce.
No, the best form is not “liberalism” (another bastardized term), or conservativism, but libertarianism in the form of laissez faire, where NO ONE gets preferences or privileges.
Remember Obama’s statement ‘the Constitution tells us what the government ‘can’t’ do for you…Not what the Government ‘can’ do for you…’ (more like can do ‘to’ you) Wow! When I heard that, it sent a chill through me! A statement like that should send a chill through everyone! At least those who have not been indoctrinated yet… Even if I wanted to give the benefit of the doubt to this administration, that statement immediately removed all that doubt.
As much as they are hated (because they are really feared) the Tea Party rose up and shook an angry fist (our founding fathers would be proud !), at the total disregard of our Constitution by this Administration. Thank God for the Tea Party! The Tea Party must remain ‘vigilant’ however. Even with this new Congress, there are still evil minds lurking… The Tea Party’s work is far from finished…
Faith,
You are 100% correct, the work has only just begun.
We have several generations now who were educated in the liberal mode, with relitivism and selfishness at its core. These “americans” will continue to vote for what “makes sense” to them, meaning a promised nanny state, with elitest experts in charge of everything, with everything “free” to everyone because were a ‘rich” country that can “afford it”
Most public schools are full of petty tyrants who long to be masters of the world. They want nothing more than to be part of the elite, hip crowd of decision makers, or, at best, simply greedy union thieves living the high life on what SHOULD be a SERVANTS salary.
I know of what I speak, the teachers in my district earn 100k AVERAGE SALARY for 185 days of work per year. Plus cost free perks, like medical and pensions they do NOT contribute to. They are, to a person, angry left wing “limosine liberals” with nothing but contempt for the working people who pay their salaries. They expect to be paid more than your average commercial airline pilot (think: Captain Sully level of skill/decision making in a crisis) for a 6.75 hour workday, teaching 2nd grade math.
They have an inordinate influence on our childlen and the how the subject matter of our national discourse is presented.
It will take at least one full generation AFTER these overpaid, self important leftists have been purged, before we can begin to feel things have changed at all.
They are the cancer of our republic, the deep generational damage they’ve done will not be corrected for a very long time.
I agree…
Last year the ‘teachers’ (teachers union) in our town cried fowl because their 2% budget increase was voted down. This happened in many surrounding towns as well. Our economy is suffering.
I am well aware of their, and our governments tactics. They ‘use’ the children to ‘tug at our conscience’ – for example without the (additional tax) dollars programs will have to be cut. Supplies won’t be available. etc… The schools will collapse…
Are people aware ‘most’ of the money would go into the pensions for these teachers (up to 80%) while a measley 20% would go to the ‘children’? If they are so strapped for dollars I say they should budget what they have better…
Better yet get rid of the pensions that are crippling our towns and cities. Go to 401K and perhaps teacher incentives. Get rid of teachers (tenure)for those who are not measuring up, instead of throwing money at the same old tired problem…
“There has been a great deal of discussion in the United States about the Constitution — despite the fact that it was promulgated over two centuries ago — and whether it is relevant to contemporary America.”
Wow, talk about straw men.
Unfortunately, the Constitution seems to be owned by the Supreme Court. As long as the Court is occupied by traitorous judges, an enforcement of the Constitution seems unlikely.
How do we the people stimulate an impeachment proceeding against the likes of Ginsburg, Kagan and Sotomayor? Is this even feasable?
Not currently. It would take a constitutional amendment. It is not clear to me who would be the proper parties. Would that be the House with trial in the Senate as is the rule for impeachment of the Executive? The Senate is empowered with confirming Federal judges, and the Senate is a continuing body (Rule II; it cannot be the trial mechanism. Nor do I see that the Executive should be empowered to initiate a bill of impeachment, since the appointment origionaly came from the Executive, though that office is not a continuing body. the only possibility, while retaining the principle of three co-equal and balance branches of government is to establish both impeachment and trial within the House; a very troublesome enrichment of House power.
There is no reason, however, that judges could not be term limited to one decade.
A primary example of an a failed experiment in “greater democracy” is the 17th amendment. Prior to the 17th Amendment, the legislatures of the various states selected the senators that represented those states. This level of separation from direct representation allowed the Senate to directly represent the interests of the States and to take a long term view of the issues of the day. With direct representation in the Senate came greater instability in governance and foreign policy, as well as a marginalization of the States themselves. The Senate is unable to function effectively in it’s deliberative role under the current structure and the States have absolutely no representation in the federal government. Now is the time to repeal the 17th amendment and return indirect representation of the People and direct representation of the States’ legislative bodies to the Senate of the United States.
The People are already directly represented by the House of Representatives, the States need their voice back.
We are seeing the “cloud no bigger than a child’s hand” on the horizon concerning the Left and it’s relationship to the Constitution. It is slowly becoming fashionable in progressive circles to take the position that the Constitution is no longer “relevant” to today’s society. A case in point is the Left’s sudden contempt with the 1st Amendment and their increasing desire to put limitations on speech in the name of “fairness.” (Whatever that is.)
We have seen a more advanced specimen of this phenomenon in Canada where quasi-legal “Human Rights” tribunals have routinely punished speech that they deem to be “offensive.” (Whatever that is.) Most famously Mark Steyn and Ezra Levant ran afoul of these bodies after publishing articles that CAIR and other groups subjectively determined were “racist.” Steyn and Levant gave as good as they got in that imbroglio but the silence of Canadian liberals on the right of the duo to speak was deafening.
American progressives are, without doubt, incrementally moving toward an embrace of censorship. It won’t be the old-fashioned book-burning type (at least not yet) but will proceed on the basis that speech should be suppressed if it is not “constructive”, or if is “offensive” or if it is “without social utility.” (We all know who the targets of this will be.)
A newly released edition of “Huckleberry Finn” redacts the “N-word” from the volume on the basis that the word is offensive and that little tykes reading Twain’s masterpiece shouldn’t be exposed to it. This is the “nice” censorship of the type currently favored by the progressive Left.
The Left has long advocated “speech codes” in those centers where they are most powerful – i.e. the universities and elite media. Their goal is to extend this across the entire country. The trick is that they do this while at the same time maintaining that it is they and not conservatives who are the guardians of free speech. Taking the N-word out of “Huckleberry Finn” is “sensitive.” Objecting to a cucifix in a jar of urine on public display is “censorship.” You see how this works.
Chambers: “Taking the N-word out of “Huckleberry Finn” is “sensitive.” Objecting to a cucifix in a jar of urine on public display is “censorship.” You see how this works.
Yes, we do, good analogy.
But in some ways, I dont care WHAT they take out of Huck Finn…if a publisher pays for the rights, and thinks it will sell, then go for it….
But its when we are forced to PAY for the crucifix in the jar of urine, because nobody would ever WANT to see it, thats so infuriating…
Let the liberals compete with their ideas, and we’ll see who’s are the most popular, relavent, meanigful…but they’d loose every time (see: fox news vs NPR ratings) so they force us to subsidize their very assault on our position, which could never succeed of its own merits
Cheap no talent bastards that they are
David Cooper @11 – I second the motion to repeal the 17th Amendment for exactly the same reasons you do.
Jacobite replying to Libertyship46 @1: There is a clause in the Constitution that does allow the Congress to rein in the Court. It is in Article III Section 2, where the following is written: “In all other cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appelate jurisdiction … with such exceptions and such regulations as Congress shall make.” If Congress had the will, it could easily rein in the Court by making certain things not appealable. Of course, that is a two-edged sword.
Finally, those who would denigrate the Constitution have to realize that the Federal government exists because of the Constitution – no Constitution, no Federal government. As John Boehner said, “More than a country, America is an idea,” and one of those ideas is the Constitution which gave life to the Federal government, and without the Constitution we are 50 sovereign states.
I agree with Mr. Glazebrook and Bleacher. I wanted to raise some new ideas but of course there are many other approaches that are also correct. But I do think many peole have been mislead into thinking that the Constitution is some easily outdated, detailed laundry list of specifics which no longer apply. I wanted to stress that it establishes a system based on great wisdom and a detailed study of human experience which is completely fresh. Indeed, the history since the 1780s have shown just how correct it was. I hope that some people of good will (however misled) will read the article and understand things better. Of course, the people responsible for misleading won’t and don’t want to.
The constitution is a contract, and his value is only compliance.
The Constitution is excellent. Those who denigrate it – and not amend it, as it itself provides for – are would-be tyrants, unwilling to support the rule of law. The lies of those who are now attacking the Constitution are instructive. For example, some of them claim that abiding by the Constitution would mean that the clause providing that for the purposes of census for voting, those who are in servitude would only count for three-fifths, and excluding Indians, means that now Negroes should only count for three-fifths for the census for voting purposes. This is preposterous! There is no reference to race in the clause, and in any case, there are no individuals in the United States in servitude – i.e. slaves, slavery having been abolished by the thirteenth, fourteenth, and fifteenth Amerndments.
An excellent defense of the constitution is The Federalist Papers, which were written for that purpose.
The author of the principal article commits an error when he writes that business in the late Nineteenth Century became too powerful and that in consequence the central government needed to also become more powerful to counter big business with regulation.
The actual history is that governments in the United States at all level began passing laws that favored certain companies by granting special favors, permits, etc. In this way monopolies were being created by government. The financial and other material favors of business to the supporting politicians resulted in larger monopolies and in the development of trusts. Later, some politicians began the complaint against business and called for more government regulation. Had government rather removed the first laws that were a major factor to the development of trusts and monopolies the solution would not have necessitated larger governments. Competition works when the government does not favor any producer or establish enforceable standards.
Larger and more intrusive governments result in more businesses trying to influence policy-making to bring privileges to those businesses. The cycle is set at that point for ever larger government and ever more influential business lobbying of government. Remember TARP?
You need to get a life and stop posting the same thing all over every website you find. It’s hard as hell to do a report on something like this when the only document the comes up is yours.
hello.
you guys blow