The Constitution an Academic Exercise?

The Claremont Institute ^ | January 30, 2003 | Thomas Krannawitter

[Archon of the East]

My friend Ken Masugi disagrees with me and Ben Boychuk not on the principles of free society and constitutional government, but on the prudent defense of those principles today. In an earlier post I had suggested that it would be good if President Bush, given his popularity and the public platform available to him, would remind his fellow citizens, those serving in Congress as well as those not, that in America we have the rule of law -- that the fundamental law, the Constitution, serves as the authority for what government may and may not do. That after all has been key to American success and prosperity.

President Bush went a long way in concluding that the liberty we prize is not America's gift to others, but God's gift to humanity. But we need to remind Americans what that implies: Our rights, our liberties, come from God, not government. The purpose of government is to protect those rights which we possess by nature. This also means that if government is to offer protection of natural rights, and not be a threat to those rights, government must be limited in its scope and power. That is precisely why we have a Constitution.

Unfortunately Americans have largely forgotten this general framework necessary for free society, and many have bought into the alternative: that rights, or "entitlements," are gifts from government, and that as government is the source of rights, government can dole them out or rescind them as it pleases. I do not believe it would be "folly" for a President as popular as Bush to explain these alternatives in a general and gentle way to the American people, as Ken seems to think it would be.

Finally, Ken equates a defense of constitutional government with "an abstract academic exercise," which according to him is something different from a "political speech" such as the State of the Union. Here we differ. I think the Constitution can and needs to be defended in American politics. I think such a defense forms the core of American statesmanship. And I think there are examples, both recent and old. Consider these remarks from Ronald Reagan (reprinted in the Claremont Institute's Declaration/Constitution booklet):

"I had a copy of the Soviet Constitution, and I read it with great interest. And I saw all kinds of terms in there that sound just exactly like our own: 'freedom of assembly' and 'freedom of speech' and so forth. Of course, they don't allow them to have those things, but they're in there in the constitution. But I began to wonder about the other constitutions -- everyone has one -- and our own and why so much emphasis on ours. And then I found out, and the answer was very simple. That's why you don't notice it at first, but it is so great that it tells the entire difference. All those other constitutions are documents that say that 'We, the government, allow the people the following rights,' and our Constitution says 'We, the people, allow the government the following privileges and rights.'"

Surely Ken does not believe such rhetoric to be "an abstract academic exercise?"

[Archon of the East]

I have often wondered why our politicians who are sworn to uphold the Constituion do not use that opportunity to teach the American public who I feel have either forgotten or have never taken the time to understand what our founders created let alone the more important question of why. The people in the best postion to start the discussion should be our elected officials, follwed by our schools.

[tacticalogic]

The people in the best postion to start the discussion should be our elected officials, follwed by our schools.

They are. The question is why are they not motivated to do so.

[Archon of the East]

The question is why are they not motivated to do so.

That is the million dollar question that needs to be asked, IMO it maybe for anyone of several reasons the least of which is that they have agendas/interest that they need to stretch the Constitution in order to achieve thus a strict adherence to it would be counter productive to those interest's. Also I really believe that many have little knowledge of it, philosophically speaking....IMO