The Constitution for all times, or limited by its founding era?
In today's Uncommon Knowledge episode with William Voegeli, the guest asserted that "America was a very different place in 1920 than it was in 1787." This statement was expanded to argue that the Constitution was written for the people of it's time, and must be changed to accommodate the changing times.
Implicit in that statement is the idea that the Constitution of the United States was a document for the formation of a government that would serve only as long as the period of it's author's lives, and would then require changes as the times change. I believe that assertion needs to be vigorously opposed.
The Constitution isn't a document designed to define governance in this country. The Constitution is a document designed to constrain government. To keep it confined within the power of flawed man to govern without the power to satisfy his propensity for self aggrandizement through the accumulation of power. As such, it is the ultimate expression of the conservative mind towards governance.
Allowing for a long, difficult process for amendment was the only concession made for accommodation of the inevitability of the changing times that the Founders knew would come in future years. To make peace with the inevitability of changes in interpretation or adaptation to the times is to betray the very essence of what the Constitution of the United States is. How say ye?
- Comment (13)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (2)
Comments:
Jan '11
Re: The Constitution for all times, or limited by its founding era?
If you change the meaning based on the zeigeist, then you've got rule of Man and not rule of law.
Platitudes aside, I think a lot of people who support a strict originalist interpretation of the Constitution might not like the world which would result. Sure, the Commerce Clause would be returned to a sane orbit, but how would you feel about gun rights? Did Madison believe that people should be allowed to own modern assault rifles? I don't think anyone really knows. And that's the problem with originalism.
In my opinion, I think stuff like Necessary and Proper and other clauses of vagueness should be read loosely to give the central government authority appropriate to the situation. What is appropriate? Let the Congress decide, but let the President and the courts run a smell test on it.
Dec '10
Re: The Constitution for all times, or limited by its founding era?
I'm not sure I disagree with what Voegeli said as stated by you above. I'm sorry to say I haven't yet heard the most recent UK podcast.
Changing times and technologies may very well require changes in the Constitution. But any change should be a change in actual content via the cumbersome ammendment process rather than a change in interpretation via the courts.
On the other hand, I'm sympathetic to your understanding that the whole point is limited government. Amendments should define limits, not governmental powers.
Edited on February 18, 2011 at 4:32pmOct '10
Re: The Constitution for all times, or limited by its founding era?
fullfrontal: If you change the meaning based on the zeigeist, then you've got rule of Man and not rule of law. ...but how would you feel about gun rights? Did Madison believe that people should be allowed to own modern assault rifles? I don't think anyone really knows. And that's the problem with originalism.
In my opinion, I think stuff like Necessary and Proper and other clauses of vagueness should be read loosely to give the central government authority appropriate to the situation. What is appropriate? Let the Congress decide, but let the President and the courts run a smell test on it. · Feb 18 at 7:19am
I believe you are correct, but that is where the game is played... within the boundaries of limited government. Bottom line... if we disregard the limitations on governmental powers we wind up where we are now. Instead of a Federal government, we have a Feral government. Growing unconstrained and a danger to the very future existence of our Constitutionally based democratic republic.
Edited on February 18, 2011 at 5:21pmDec '10
Re: The Constitution for all times, or limited by its founding era?
For the last 12 years, I've been armed more often than not. In that time, I've driven by countless liquor stores and convenience markets. Not even once have I had the urge to rob one. Are you of the mind that all it would take to push me over the edge is a selective fire rifle?
Dec '10
Re: The Constitution for all times, or limited by its founding era?
raycon:
The Constitution isn't a document designed to define governance in this country. The Constitution is a document designed to constrain government.
I agree completely that the Constitution was designed specifically to constrain government. However, if the Constitution does not define governance then what does? Is government then left to define itself within the bounds laid out by the Constitution? If so, how well has that worked out for us? The commerce clause comes to mind when considering how government defines itself within the constraints of the Constitution.
Oct '10
Re: The Constitution for all times, or limited by its founding era?
The above discussion isn't to side with the gun control crowd, personally I am a multi-gun owner, and yes, they are semi-automatics. My argument is that this is "where the game is played". Now, there is no doubt that a great deal of cheating is going on in this game. Nevertheless, the principle, as articulated, is well founded.
Dec '10
Re: The Constitution for all times, or limited by its founding era?
My comment was in response to a specific example claiming that technology had required a change in the interpretation of the Constitution. And you apparently agree, despite stating the exact opposite position in your original post. I disagree.
Oct '10
Re: The Constitution for all times, or limited by its founding era?
The commerce clause is an excellent example of what happens when we lose sight of the purpose of the Constitution. Thanks to Marbury v. Madison, we are left with the Supreme Court as the Supreme branch of government. This may or may not be a good thing, but nevertheless, it is how we wind up with a commerce clause stretched beyond any meaning that could reasonably be inferred by the text of the Constitution.
John Adams said: "Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."
So... here we are. Rather than work on the "moral and religious people" part, we are creating a new constitution for the people we are... but expecting the same blessings. Perhaps we are fools after all.
Dec '10
Re: The Constitution for all times, or limited by its founding era?
raycon
Thanks to Marbury v. Madison, we are left with the Supreme Court as the Supreme branch of government.
The legislative and executive still have the ability to legislate and execute in response to SCOTUS rulings. A big part of the problem is that they haven't, so now people who are less than studied on the matter believe we have 2 co-equal branches and 1 supreme.
As for a moral and religous people, I'd definitely prefer it; however, I'd settle for literate and civically interested.
Edited on February 19, 2011 at 2:54amFeb '11
Re: The Constitution for all times, or limited by its founding era?
Puzzling, the Constitution is considered a living document by the same people that say it's passe. It's perspective, some perceive the government as a protector and others a provider. I personally promote the protector portion of the paper.
Jan '11
Re: The Constitution for all times, or limited by its founding era?
There's something that I think get's lost sight of: what we regard today as our U.S. Constitution was, in fact, a replacement constitution for our very first one -- The Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union.
Is it possible that the Anti-Federalists were correct all along?
Dec '10
Re: The Constitution for all times, or limited by its founding era?
In many ways, yes, the Anti-Federalists were correct in their arguments against the current constitution. I wrote a paper about Henry's arguments and I'm currently updating and expanding it for the capstone class for my polisci degree.
Oct '10
Re: The Constitution for all times, or limited by its founding era?
The only difference between an ancient Grecian and a modern American is that the Grecian listened only to live music. On arms, Hamilton expressed in the federalist papers, #49: “…if circumstances should at any time oblige the Government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the People, while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights, and those of their fellow-citizens.”
This ‘constitutional interpretation’ issue is a red herring similar to ‘When does life begin?’ It’s an attempt to raise an issue where none exists.
Mankind today, in all respects, is essentially unchanged from mankind of 4000 years ago. If amending the constitution is insufficient to accommodate modernity, then we are doomed