The Laughing Wolf

Of Constitutions And Kings

Steven Den Beste recently wrote a lengthy and well-thought out reply to a post by an American ex-pat living in New Zeland. While I will not get into the subject of that post, it did bring up a very important point.

“The most radical aspect of the American political experiment was the way that it institutionalized that journey. The First Amendment opened a wide public space for debate on public policy and permitted citizens to point out ways in which the system was failing and to criticize their leaders. The electoral system and the amendment process permitted us to change our system in response to that debate. And that's why this nation is so much different than it was in 1789: our system permits us to adapt and improve without violent revolution.

That institutionalization of continuous revolution is the single biggest reason that America is now the most powerful nation on earth.”

It is also why I refuse to call myself a strict constitutionalist. Despite bad history/civics teachers, demagogues, and despots, the Constitution is not some dead thing carved in stone. It is a living document that enshrines and encourages positive change. It was and is intended to change form, to grow, and to embrace new opportunities via amendment. What is not intended to change is the core beliefs: that of individual liberty, responsibility, and governance.

How and why this came to be is a fascinating study, full of intrigue worthy of Machiavelli. For the Founding Fathers were not of one mind, or even two. There were several camps and schools of thought, inspired by sources ranging from Classical Greece to the latest in liberal revolutionary thought from Europe. All agreed that King George III had to go, and that the colonies needed to be independent. Beyond that, there was little agreement.

There were those that wanted state religion, a new form of monarchy, full democracy, and a host of other divisive issues. Wisely, they could and did agree on a very broad framework that became the Declaration of Independence. As both a writer and someone interested in politics, I do wish that some of Jefferson’s writing had not been edited. Then again, having worked with governmental editing committees, I am amazed that as much stayed in as did so. For the Declaration was radical, and it speaks volumes that it was unanimous.

Such unanimity did not last, however, and the result was the Articles of Confederation. This was, in effect, our first constitution and it pleased almost no one. The Articles provided a very loose framework and not a lot of cohesiveness. That there were serious problems with it was agreed, but it let things get along and did not tread on any major toes.

Because of the problems, it was finally decided that the Articles needed revision, and a meeting was held for this purpose. Now, to be blunt, this meeting was essentially hijacked by one of the major groups, supporting of a strong central government (almost a monarchy),who in effect carried out a coup well outside their limits. Depending on how you look at it, it was either a coup de foudre or a cout d’etat. They definitely seized the unexpected opportunity when they could.

The result was not a revised Articles, but an entirely new Constitution. A number of provisions, limiting of individual liberty, were struck out. Others were added. Realizing that a true and full coup would not be supported, a deal was reached. The Constitution would be adopted, and provisions inserted for adding amendments, so that what is now the Bill of Rights could be added later. With the Bill essentially guaranteed, enough of the other groups went along so that the Constitution was adopted, even if under highly irregular circumstances.

The immediate concern, at home and in what is now Old Europe, was that a document that provided a means of change or even of repudiation was proof that these radicals were not fit to govern themselves. Such power and guaranteed change just wasn’t done! The dynamic that is America, however, embraced it and ran forward with it in a curious mix that enshrined both the Constitution and the Declaration. In essence, the Declaration set forth the spiritual guidelines in many respects, and the Constitution gave a form for making those real.

This dichotomy is the basis for the Supreme Court to consider the intent of the framers. For while such officially looks at the Constitution, it also includes a de facto guidance from the Declaration. For while there was no unanimity on the Constitution, there was for the Declaration. For while there was no unanimity on the Constitution, there was something close to it on the underlying principles. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Individual rights. Self-governance, and an educated citizenry.

Many of these things have gone in ways that could not have been foreseen. Others have gone as expected, to the delight and dismay of various schools of thought. Some may even have come dangerously close to destroying the Republic, and I am sure there are still those who would see it fall and replaced with something more class-based or dictatorial. Yet, the Republic still holds and will hold for as long as there is individual liberty, free speech, and a forum or forums through which to present a variety of ideas to the public.

I fear for the Republic, but in many ways I see the greatest hope for positive growth and change that I have seen in years. I see it in breaking the two-party monopoly; of breaking the power of the Old Media; and in the rise of the New Media. I see it in rational discourse, discussion, and even a few good arguments. I see it every day when I check blogs. I see hope in all of it.

I see it because America is a revolution that will not quit, not unless we fail of will and of our duty as Citizens. I see it because of a document called the Constitution.

-30-