Putting an end to Constitution worship

Yale Daily News ^ | 9/22/05 | JEFF MANKOFF

[kiriath_jearim]

GUEST COLUMN | JEFF MANKOFF

Published Thursday, September 22, 2005

Putting an end to Constitution worship

This past Saturday was something called "Constitution Day," though, except for some obnoxious fliers around campus put up by the Orwellian-sounding Committee for Freedom, you can be forgiven for not knowing that.

Constitution Day is a new quasi-holiday foisted upon us by Congress at the behest of Sen. Robert Byrd to force schools receiving public money -- including Yale -- to set aside time on the anniversary of the document's adoption in 1787 to teach about the Constitution.

This holiday is another ridiculous example of the "sanctimonious reverence," as Thomas Jefferson termed it, in which many Americans hold the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. Both documents no doubt played important roles in the American colonies' struggle to free themselves from British rule and establish a new nation. Recognizing them as crucial pieces of American history is one thing, but worshiping them like sacred texts goes too far.

The Constitution in particular needs to be stripped of much of the mystic awe surrounding it, since it continues to shape American political life, yet suffers from serious flaws. Many of these flaws could be corrected by wise legislation, if only legislators, and the public, were not so deeply attached to the Constitution that they cringe before any attempt to substantively alter it.

The Constitution, while laying the foundation for the creation of a great American nation, was also very much a product of its time. Though it has mostly aged well, the Constitution has also given us a rigid 18th-century political system not always well suited to the modern world. Even with its amendments, the document is fraught with problems too rarely acknowledged by politicians or the public.

As Yale political scientist Robert Dahl has pointed out, the Constitution is grossly undemocratic. Since Wyoming, with fewer than 500,000 inhabitants, has the same clout in the Senate as California, with almost 34 million, each Wyomingite counts 68 times as much as each Californian. The Constitution is also responsible for burdening us with the Electoral College, a body designed to purposely undermine popular sovereignty. The 2000 election, when Al Gore outpolled George Bush but was denied the presidency by the Electoral College (with an assist by the Supreme Court), is the most recent example of 18th-century oligarchy trampling 21st-century democracy.

Besides being undemocratic, the Constitution is also, in places, just poorly written. Take the Second Amendment, which mentions the need for a well-regulated militia and conferring the right to bear arms. Because of the Framers' unclear wording, no one has been able to establish definitively whether this right belongs only to the militia or to individuals. The easiest and fairest solution would be to just rewrite the Second Amendment, but because the Constitution has taken on the aura of sanctity in our political culture, there is little likelihood of that happening.

Adhering to the Framers' "original intent," as many conservatives would have us do, is a recipe for oligarchy (which was, after all, what the Framers wanted). Creating the Electoral College and denying the vote to women, blacks and poor people were both part of the Framers' desire to keep power in the hands of people like themselves (and I have a sneaking suspicion many "strict constructionalists" would prefer things that way). The main alternative -- seeing the Constitution as a "living document" subject to constant reinterpretation -- is also anti-democratic, since it allows the judiciary to usurp power from the elected legislative branch. The Constitution needs changing, but it should not be up to the courts to change it.

Some of the Constitution's worst features have, it is true, been corrected by amendment -- though in the case of ending slavery and giving blacks the vote, the price was civil war. The Framers deliberately made changing the Constitution difficult, but at the price of a rigidity that has made the U.S. political system ossified and anachronistic. Jefferson argued that each generation should modify the Constitution to fit its own times, since "each generation has the same right of self-government [as] the past one." Jefferson's modest regard of the Constitution as an edifice in need of constant repair is a much better way of think of our nation's most important document than the sanctimony that has given us "Constitution Day."

[Jeff Mankoff is a sixth-year Ph.D. student in the History Department.]

[Ohioan]

What is patent in this article, is that the author worships the Leftist mantra of "Democracy"--i.e., rule by numbers--and a completely utilitarian view of political societies, where nothing is really predictable, and the end sought by the most noses, at any moment, justifies whatever is desired at that moment.

Note his effort to clothe Leftist tripe with scientific method, in his citation of the words of a Leftist Professor. I used to tear up the likes of these fellows when I was a College Freshman. They have not become on whit more formidable since.

William Flax Return Of The Gods Web Site

[geopyg]

-----"Take the Second Amendment, .... Because of the Framers' unclear wording, no one has been able to establish definitively whether this right belongs only to the militia or to individuals......"---

Amendment 2: "..... the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed".


I guess it depends on the meaning of "people".

Amendment 10 talks about the "States" (so people doesn't mean states).

Amendment 4 talks about the right of people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, etc.

Seems to me the meaning of "people" is pretty clear.

[yarddog]

Questions like this need to be asked occassionally because sometimes we just take things like the Constitution for granted.

Unfortunately this guy is so dumb, I thought for awhile it was an exercise in sarcasm.

I am not an expert on the Constitution but I think many brilliant people have declared it one of the worlds greatest documents. I think so too.

[elbucko]

There's a reason we're called the united STATES of America, not the united PEOPLE of America.

I think he would prefer the name "Peoples Republic of America". That would make America more "democratic" to him.

[Constitution Day]

The professor doesn't seem to like you much

The feeling is most assuredly mutual. He sounds like a 33rd degree assclown.

[Jeff Mankoff is a sixth-year Ph.D. student in the History Department.]

Being that he's still a Ph.D. student, I suppose pretty soon he'll be Dr. Wankoff, not Mr. Wankoff.

[uncitizen]

Thanks. Good points you make. You do know i was being sarcastic?

[hosepipe]

There are three words found NOWHERE in the U.S. Constitution...
1) democracy...
2) democratic...
3) and democrat...

Its on purpose.. The framers knew what democracy was so did Marx and Lenin..
--------------------------------------------------------

Democracy is the road to socialism. Karl Marx

Democracy is indispensable to socialism. The goal of socialism is communism. V.I. Lenin

The meaning of peace is the absence of opposition to socialism.- Karl Marx

-AND- (sidebar)
We contend that for a nation to try to tax itself into prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the handle.~Winston Churchill (1874-1965)

[Adrastus]

Now, now. I can see that all you want to do is cloud the poor boys brain with understanding. If it were not so outrageous, he could be referred to (shudder) Ecclesiastes and really throw his system into overload. And we don't want to do that, do we??

[PureTrouble]

To write what was written in this article in any other nation that does not have freedom of speech would have seen this 6th year student sent to jail for a very long time.

Maybe we could get an exemption for say 10 days (just for Yale students) to let this young lad feel what would happen to him if he did not have such protection.

[Republic]

Terrific quote from Sir Winston....just so dead on it almost hurts.

[thompsonsjkc]

Creating the Electoral College and denying the vote to women, blacks and poor people were both part of the Framers' desire to keep power in the hands of people like themselves (and I have a sneaking suspicion many "strict constructionalists" would prefer things that way).

While there were amendments to guarantee that women and blacks had the right to vote, is there anything that would explicitly exclude them? I can't find anything. If the constitution doesn't explicitly prohibit something, why are we to assume that said thing is prohibited (ie: if the constitution doesn't say that women aren't allowed to vote, shouldn't they be allowed to?).

On another note, the Full Faith and Credit clause:

Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.

Wouldn't that cover the Defense of Marriage Act, a general law? If a state wants to permit same-sex marriage, fine, that's their choice, but states that don't want to shouldn't be forced to recognize them. Congress has legislated by general law that the states need not recognize same-sex marriage records of other states, which seems to me to be covered by this clause.

[proxy_user]

I'm talking Yale graduate school. This is an entirely different from undergrad.

Just imagine having to past a test in French or German, Latin or Greek, plus one other foreign or ancient language of your choice in the first week.

Or in a single one-semester course, having to read all the novels of Jane Austen and Dickens, plus several biographies and critical tomes on on each one, and producing a ten-page paper every week to prove you're doing it. That's only one of the four courses you're taking.

Believe me, what the undergraduates do is piffle, but the grad school is quite tough.

[G.Mason]

"Besides being undemocratic, the Constitution is also, in places, just poorly written. Take the Second Amendment, which mentions the need for a well-regulated militia and conferring the right to bear arms. Because of the Framers' unclear wording, no one has been able to establish definitively whether this right belongs only to the militia or to individuals. The easiest and fairest solution would be to just rewrite the Second Amendment, but because the Constitution has taken on the aura of sanctity in our political culture, there is little likelihood of that happening."

The left will go to any and all lengths to promote their propaganda, thereby proving their stupidity.

Were this moron able to research the words used in the Constitution, and place the meaning of each in the context of that time, he would have a clear view of what those words meant then, and mean now.

A perusal of the Federalists Papers would also enable this miscreant to decipher to exactly just what it was the Honorable Founding Fathers spoke.

Of course Jeff Mankoff is not interested in truth. He is interested in the continued destruction of these United States, from within.

When the SHTF there will be no lack of targets.

[KC Burke]

I'd be interested in the average length of a Yale history doctoral program completion. Still there and doing a sixth year implies a poor research ability as illustrated by the article -- opinion, wind and noise, nothing more.

[tom h]

"Since Wyoming, with fewer than 500,000 inhabitants, has the same clout in the Senate as California, with almost 34 million, each Wyomingite counts 68 times as much as each Californian"

Well, let's consider this point. About 15 million "Californians" are illegal aliens or the children of illegal aliens, or illegal aliens who became naturalized under past amnesty laws, many fraudulently.

Hmmm. Lots of people whose residency in California began under a cloud. This leaves 19 million Californians whose residency isn't recently tainted.

Then when you consider the fact that a resident of Wyoming, descended from ranchers and pioneers, has 100 times the common sense, independent spirit, and embodiment of the American character, I come to the conclusion that Wyoming has earned the right to have proportionally more representation in the Senate than California.

How do I prove they have more common sense? Easy. Two words: "Boxer" and "Feinstein."

[Hank Rearden]

Well, according to Google, enlightenment may be directed his way thusly:

jeffrey.mankoff@yale.edu

[cowtowney]

--As Yale political scientist Robert Dahl has pointed out, the Constitution is grossly undemocratic. Since Wyoming, with fewer than 500,000 inhabitants, has the same clout in the Senate as California, with almost 34 million, each Wyomingite counts 68 times as much as each Californian.--

That's because we're a republic, not a democracy, you moron.

LMAO - I was thinking the same thing. What a maroon. The guy thinks he just thought of that? Duh! Quite embarrassing for Yale.

[Congressman Billybob]

I sent the following letter to the Editor-in-Chief. If I receive any reply, I will post it here. If I get a chance to publish a reply article in the Yale Daily News, I will post the article on FreeRepublic as well.

Dear Sir/Madame,

Back when ice covered the Earth (1963-64) I was a Senior Editor of the Yale Daily News. So, though I don't read it regularly, I pay greater attention to it than most readers who encounter its articles on the Internet. So I started reading the "Constitution Worship" with interest, but it wound up as disgust.

After Yale there was law school, Ph.D. work (currently ABD), and 32 years' practice in the US Supreme Court. I've also published seven books and about 600 articles. You'll probably find two of my books in the Sterling Library, one of them on constitutional law.

I'm not about to write a reply to the "Constitution Worship" article as a letter to you. Several times over the years I've sent a letter to the Chairman of the News (do you still use that title which was Joe Lieberman's in my day?). But I have never received so much as a "thanks for your letter" reply.

If you want a well-grounded, scholarly reply to the article you just published, I will be happy to supply that. Just tell me the length you want, and the date you want it.

I hope to hear from you. The Yale community deserves to have an alternative argument to that presented in this article, as food for thought. But, if I don't hear from you, I'll gather that opposing voices are unwelcome.

Cordially,

John /s/

John / Billybob

[KarlInOhio]

I agree that the Constitution needs a few changes. Here are my suggestions.

Article I, Section 7: (addition):
Every bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall provide specific reference to the line in the Constitution giving the United States the authority specified in the bill.

Article I, Section 8:
To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;

Amendment II
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, tThe right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people. Section 1: THE POWERS NOT DELEGATED TO THE UNITED STATES BY THE CONSTITUTION, NOR PROHIBITED BY IT TO THE STATES, ARE RESERVED TO THE STATES RESPECTIVELY, OR TO THE PEOPLE!!!

Section 2: The Supreme Court, Congress and the President are directed to read this amendment every day at the start of work.

Amendment XVI
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration. The sixteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.

[geopyg]

Yes! Just thought your idea of what the meaning of "rights" is went well with my what is the meaning of "people" is. (I won't get into what is the meaning of "Arms" is!)