The great American political debate today is not about Obamacare or public employee union power or taxes.
It is about the United States Constitution.
Ever since President Woodrow Wilson opened the door to the possibility of a much broader interpretation of the Constitution, Americans have been in a great battle about the meaning of the Founding Fathers’ words in the Constitution and about its explanation in the Federalist Papers written by James Madison, one of its most influential writers.
As what are known as liberal interpretations of the Constitution have grown in number and scope at the hands of federal judges, and in particular Supreme Court justices, the Constitution has become less the document the Founding Fathers envisioned. It is now much more a document meant to guide the modern liberal American government in its quest to establish an ever wider scope of authority for its activities.
During the period from Wilson to today, approximately 100 years, those who favor what are known as strict interpretations of the Constitution have fought a guerrilla war to try to stop the erosion of meaning in America
The most accessible example of these two positions has been in the effort of liberal constructionists to ban firearms. The strict constructionists have so far won the day, because the Second Amendment’s plain words are clear and precise. “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state
While strict interpretation says that this grants a universal right to bear arms, the liberal interpretation argues that the Second Amendment was meant to allow states to arm militias (now the National Guard) and that private ownership of guns outside that context can be regulated. Courts have come down in the middle. Guns which have no purpose related to the maintenance of militia, and sometimes to the ownership of guns for self-protection, can be regulated. And they are, through taxes and license obligations. But, no court has ever upheld a total denial of the individual’s right to bear arms. This type of argument has raged legally for a century over many issues.
But, today the Constitution is being threatened in a much more devious and dangerous way. Those who are liberal constructionists say the Constitution has become so outdated that it should serve merely as a “guardrail,” that is as a guide much like the Bible that tells us what the Founding Fathers thought and why, so that we can today decide what we think and why, without trying to toe the line and stay within the framework of the Constitution.
While this argument has not yet been accepted by many courts, it would the beginning of the end of the American experiment if it ever were.
The American Constitution, like most constitutions, is not flexible. It is cast in stone and is meant to be followed so that governments do not overstep their powers and destroy democracy.
A majority of Americans agree that the Constitution means what it says - that is, they are strict constructionists. Liberal constructionists say that many of those who believe this also believe every word of the Bible. They are, in effect, taking the Constitution out of the political realm and putting it in the religious realm - to be revered but not heeded word for word in the political process.
And, that is today’s great American political debate. Obamacare and public employee union power and taxes are symptoms of the debate, but they are not at its core.
The core of the debate is whether the United States Constitution will survive as a defining and limiting framework for American democracy or whether it will be replaced by men and women whose ideas will vary depending on their generation, background, education, and hidden agendas.
On this American Independence Day, the Fourth of July, 2011, we should think about this.
No comments:
Post a Comment