Mark – very well said. I’m more than happy to start the field day. (Or at least transfer my horror from Twitter to the Corner.)
In addition to the flaws Mark has already highlighted, the NYT’s piece is marinated in the false — though wildly popular — supposition that “newer” equals “better.” It is one of our modern tragedies that statements such as the following are presented as if an axiomatically Bad Thing:
“Our Constitution is terse and old, and it guarantees relatively few rights.”
Okay.
This “but-it’s-old!” attitude finds its purest expression in a later comment from the deliciously named Professor Law:
“Nobody wants to copy Windows 3.1.”
If this is true, it’s irrelevant. The Constitution is not Windows 3.1. A computer operating system is an inherently ephemeral, improvable thing; human nature is pretty much constant. The Constitution was designed to temper and accommodate the vices and virtues of human behavior in order to create a framework for power that maximizes liberty and keeps tyranny at bay. The word “constitution” comes from the Latin verb constituere, which means to arrange or decide. It can thus contain good or bad prescriptions and true or false insights — make bad arrangements and decisions, if you will — but surely such judgement cannot be made with reference to age? One can happily criticize the document’s match with society, but to rely on its being old for one’s critique as if this were an argument in and of itself is to range into absurdity. After all, man did not lose his ambition when he stopped wearing hats.
The other main criticism seems to be that the Rest of The World Doesn’t Like It Anymore. Again, so what? America is an outlier on many issues. That’s why people move here. Instead of taking shots, the New York Times should be proud of this. America is the only nation in the world, for example, in which one can more or less say whatever one likes, and in which the individual’s right to free expression trumps all other concerns. Here we are not subject to arbitrary government balancing acts, at least when it comes to speech. NR’s own Mark Steyn knows as well as I do what happens when otherwise democratic countries incorporate more “modern” attitudes into their charters. If America is different from the rest of the world, then we should say Good. We do not need the approval of Saudi Arabia.
Coming from abroad, I react with a particular horror to the casual way in which many dismiss America’s backbone. If this country should fall, those of us who believe in American values simply have nowhere else in the world to go. It is highly unlikely that a constitution like America’s will surface again. By virtue of Providence or a quirk of history or whatever you will, the United States has been afforded a uniquely brilliant document. The Philadelphia Convention of 1787 provided history with perhaps its only instance of Platonic philosopher kings doing what Plato suggested they might. That the revolution — more of a restoration, really — was hijacked by a small, salutary clique of brilliant men who did not have to refer too closely to public sentiment (publics are not very good at drawing up constitutions) and had an extremely solid understanding of history and political philosophy should be celebrated. It gave America a work of art, and we would do well not to presume that we have such painters among us today, or that, even if we do, they would be given access to the canvas
Put bluntly, the founders put in a framework that simply could not be democratically constructed. If held today, any constitutional convention would be taken hostage by every special interest group in the country and the Bill of Rights would be 2,000 items long. It would likely not be a charter of liberty but of entitlements. Imperfect as it is, we are infinitely better off with what we have. Whether the New York Times likes it or not, the Constitution is still supreme. It is our duty to ensure that it stays that way.
"and it guarantees relatively few rights.”
-----------------------
Well, the constitution wasn't put together to "guarantee rights" and just a modicum of research demonstrates this.
But, I do wonder how the author of that thought feels about the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed portion of the constitution?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe Constitution was written by men trying to devise a form of government that would prevent the centralization of power. Federalism, three branches of government with numerous checks and balances, a bicameral legislature - all to keep the power of state from being centralized in one man, or one small group of men.
Progressivism seeks the centralization of power as its primary goal. Is there any surprise that progressives try to "interpret" the Constitution out of existence? God help us if they succeed.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAnd it's all the more reason we should repeal the 17th Amendment. The Founders knew all too well the influence of lobbyist and lure of collecting campaign donations to sell favors. If our Senators were still appointed the senates of the individual states they would be far more mindful of the encroachment on states rights. We wouldn't have horribly written laws like Obamacare passed at midnight on Christmas Eve that place undo financial burden on individual states healthcare budgets. We wouldn't have 55 MPH speed limits and minimum drinking ages of 21 be the law of the land. And abortion would be something that individual states would get to decide.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIf our Constitution is so old, decrepit and terse, then let the NYT editors move to country with a newer, lengthier and presumably better constitution -- like Venezuela or the Russian Federation.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI'm not sure the political left could hand conservatives a bigger present in a presidential election year than to announce the utter hostility of the left to our Constitution.
The American people revere the Constitution more than any other single facet of American life. They perceive, rightly, that it is the foundation of our governmental system, one that is perceived to have worked quite well for over 200 years.
I don't think they'd prefer to be governed by some other nation's fundamental charter, and I'm not even sure they'd prefer wholesale changes to our own.
I, for one, am elated that the political left feels courageous enough to at least hint publicly at the source of their hatred of our nation. And it is refreshing for them to at least not mince words about their disdain for our nation's fundamental charter.
This will give a whole fresh perspective on their "living document" theory of interpretation.
Now, they can be asked: "That is simply legalese for avoiding what the Constitution actually says, because you find its language inconvenient to your political agenda, right?"
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseMadisonian,
I appreciate your optimism. But from what I have observed, most Americans, especially of my generation (Gen X) and younger have been poisoned with the "living Constitution" meme for far too long.
In general they like the Constitution, but I don't think many realize how important it really is and why it's good that it is set up for gridlock.
Notice how the media and the Left, and sometimes the GOP will talk about "gridlock" and "bipartisanship"? And how some polls will show how Americans don't like the gridlock and the partisanship and how "working together" keeps being pushed?
The Left has worn Americans down and has poisoned their minds that I don't know if most Americans would notice if they didn't follow the Constitution unless and until the state came knocking at their door to drag them to a re-education camp.
We have been free for so long, and even though our liberties have been diluted and stripped down a bit, people still can't think that a dictatorship can happen here. And that's because everyone old enough to remember Wilson is dead and FDR is remembered for WW2 and SS and people like that we won WW2 and they've gotten to like SS (See old people when you talk about touching SS even one little iota).
If we had time, we could give Americans the antidote for the poison that is Progressivism (Statism). But there is no time. This country will very likely fall in the next couple of years, and to the chagrin of Ronald Reagan, we will relegate our children and descendants to a 1000 years of darkness.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseOne of the most obnoxious things about Constitution-worshipers is how ignorant they are of the history of the actual Constitution.
The Constitution was not handed down from God to Moses, a perfect plan for humanity for all time. It was instead a series of messy compromises that head to contend with diametrically opposed points of view and the existing balance of power. For example, Madison was horrified by the idea of a Senate that where each state had equal representation instead of basing representation on population; he believed such an idea violated basic republican principles. And you have some awfully brazen compromises that no one can exactly defend, such as the 3/5ths compromise and provisions protecting the slave trade until 1812. The Constitution barely passed. Indeed, despite its manifest imperfections, the Framers were afraid to allow any chance to amend the core deal, because of the growing and powerful opposition from the Anti-Federalists. The Constitution was illegal under the Articles of Confederation, which was supposed to be perpetual and was supposed to only be replaced by unanimous agreement. The Constitution bypassed this and specified that it would go into effect when nine states ratified it, in direct contradiction to the Articles. It also bypassed the traditional power structures in the states, namely the state legislatures, altogether. In many ways, the Constitution was a messy compromise rushed through by politicians desperate to increase federal power and who wanted to place limits on the power of the states that would be impossible under the Articles of Confederation. Many were especially concerned about the tendency of state governments to allow debtors off the hook with respect to their creditors and the excessive populism arising at the state level.
Contrast the humble statements of Benjamin Franklin advocating for ratification of an imperfect Constitution with the arrogance of modern day people who practically claim that the Constitution is somehow perfect. Of course, it is only "perfect" because these people inevitable project their own values onto it and they are generally ignorant of the actual history and messy politics surrounding its creation.
Ignorant reverence is a disgusting vice.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIgnorant irreverence is even more so, David. I think most conservatives commenting here know very well how much compromise was involved in writing and ratifying the Constitution. But, you undercut your own argument that constitutionalists believe the document is perfect when you mention the amendment process - since it's almost always the constitutionalists arguing that if you want it changed so badly, then amend it.
No, it ain't perfect, but it's a whole sight better than anything else out there. (And, yes, that includes any constitution that guarantees food or housing or education as a "right".)
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIf the Framers of the Constitution wanted to change the Articles of Confederation so badly, maybe they should have used the existing amendment process instead of inventing a new one and illegally disregarding both the established provisions for amendment in the Articles of Confederation and the traditional role of existing state legislatures.
This is another example of an argument born in ignorance.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYou are quite right.
The U.S. Constitution is undoubtedly the worst, most compromised, hypocritical and illegitimate constitution ever devised by man -- except for all the others.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIf you please, who exactly are these people who "practically" claim the Constitution is somehow perfect? I was unable to find any actual examples via google.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseGiven that the U.S. Constitution has a clear method to change or update the constitution, the implied truth-claim that inextricably follows from saying that there are better constitutions out there is that the American people are uninformed and stupid.
That you have it, folks. The American people are backwards, falling behind, and stupid. So says Ruth Ginsberg and the folks quoted in the N.Y. Times - people that are themselves too stupid to realize the irony and idiocy of claiming that in the realm of laws meant to withstand fad and fashion, our constitution is unfashionable.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseMaybe nobody wants to copy Windows 3.1, but nobody much cared for being forced to move from XP to Vista, either.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI did not see your comment when I wrote mine. I've resisted Vista too.
What's worse is the "Ribbon". It's proof that newer is not the same as better.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI still prefer Windows XP. But then I prefer the US constitution and Stephen Foster. I like the oldies.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse> "That the revolution — more of a restoration, really — was hijacked by a small, salutary clique of brilliant men who did not have to refer too closely to public sentiment (publics are not very good at drawing up constitutions) and had an extremely solid understanding of history and political philosophy should be celebrated. It gave America a work of art, and we would do well not to presume that we have such painters among us today, or that, even if we do, they would be given access to the canvas."
This statement encapsulates everything that bothers me about conservatism. It portrays America not as a society that endures by its values, but as a freak of history, born of accident and the supposed brilliance of a few long-dead men. It's a philosophy that supposes the country peaked at its creation and can only look forward to decline or stasis. It mistrusts actual Americans to improve upon or even maintain their own country. It explains the xenophobia that pervades conservatism -- as if Americans today are so morally weak that foreign cultures threaten to overwhelm whatever small spark of goodness has been passed down to us from the holy forefathers. It reduces the entire country and its history to a piece of paper written by imperfect men hundreds of years ago, upon which we never dare attempt to improve, and without which we'd all revert to clubbing each other in the head.
For the life of me, I'll never understand why that sick sentiment so often passes as patriotism.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"... upon which we never dare attempt to improve ... "
So, what do you call all those amendments, then, if not attempts to improve?
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse>> "... upon which we never dare attempt to improve ... "
> So, what do you call all those amendments, then, if not attempts to improve?
How many of these improvements were supported and condoned by conservatives?
Did conservatives love the 13th amendment back in 1865? Or the 14th? The 15th? The 16th? The 17th? The 19th? For that matter, do today's Tea Partiers want MORE "improvements" or do they favor the repeal of existing "improvements"? It's the latter, for the most part ... I guess we should be grateful these enlightened folks now approve of women's suffrage and the end of slavery for African Americans! The other amendments that I mention have been singled out for repeal by the likes of Sharron Angle, Rand Paul and Mike Lee.
I'm sorry but the original point stands: to conservatives, the U.S. Constitution *as it stands* is always a sacrosanct document that should not be tampered with.
MARCUS
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHmmm, it was the Democratic party that opposed the 13th amendment, 14th, and 15th amendments. There no longer exists a 3/5ths compromise in the Constitution because it was nullified by said amendments. And the actual first time an income tax was implemented was during the Civil War by Abraham Lincoln, a Republican. And I don't take it that the Founders denied women the right to vote purely based on sex, but rather that they did not intended America to be an all out democracy. If there was anything they despised more than Monarchy it was direct democracy. Instead they only sought input and oversight by heads of households, who owned land, had families, and therefore had a stake in the future and well being of the Republic. And in there day and time families structures remained fairly uniform and traditional and thereby mostly directed by a male head of a household. But yes as times changed, women continued to grow and prosper just as everyone else did and thereby a transformation in the dynamics of the average household took place. Were there conservatives holding onto the traditional structure of the family that opposed it this amendment, yes; but I'll point out that they lost.
There is certainly precedence that not every "improvement" to the Constitution worked out so well. The 18th amendment was certainly an utter failure and was certainly a profound change to the Constitution made by the very Conservatives that you vilify as being resistant to change. I guess in your little world Conservatives are this thing that hold the Constitution sacrosanct and resistant to any alteration, except when they don't, in which case they are theocratic statists that want to bend the power of the Constitution so as to bury us all under a stack of Bibles. Me things you really can't have it both ways only when it suits your arguments.
With that said the 17th amendments is another "improvement" to the Constitution that has had a number of unperceived side effects. What's the one thing that most everyone complains about with regards to government? The undo influence of lobbyists, cronyism, political action committees, and the degradation of state autonomy. The Founders understood this all too well and is precisely why they made it so that half of Congress could forgo campaigning and populism in lieu of currying favor for campaign contributors and vote seeking.
Finally I'll say that Democrats of today are just as every bit as knee jerk reactionary as your so called misconceived "conservative". Nearly every Democrat of today does nothing but talk about reversing the failed policies of Bush's 8 years and of the Reagan regime. For them they dream of nothing but a return to some magical time in the early 60's, right after the Civil rights act passed to which we will remain stuck in an eternal stasis. I'd argue that really both sides need to get their heads out of the past, grow up, and start thinking about what we need to do to carry our truly great and unique strain of American liberalism ahead into the 21st century. It's tough to say exactly what that could or should be going forward but I certainly don't think that it necessitates fundamentally transforming the United States of America.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse> Hmmm, it was the Democratic party that opposed the 13th amendment,
> 14th, and 15th amendments.
The D vs. Rep. labels are largely useless since the parties essentially have switched positions. I think the relevant discussion concerns those who want to keep the Constitution as it is, versus those who want to amend it in the name of progress.
MARCU$
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse