With the greatest of respect, no, we're not. We would be were it a real contract. Were our ability to vote, say, contingent upon our defense of the Constitution there would be a lot fewer voters (Hollywood, Berkeley, Madison, Ann Arbor, and Ithica would be practically empty of them).
I would agree with a scheme to present the Constitution to young people as a social contract at the age of majority, although I might point out that up to then they will have been the beneficiaries of that contract anyway without the commensurate demands. That isn't quite what Rousseau had in mind but it seems a perquisite of youth, although why current youth should have that luxury based merely on their being born in the right place is another philosophical discussion altogether.
It'll never really be a complete social contract on those bases, although we can certainly do better than we have been at making it so. Just some thoughts.
We must 'constitutionally insist' on the principle that our rights to life, liberty, or property are self-evident,
[or, - are a gift of a creator, - whether one believes in one or not], - as part of our constitutional social contract.
They may, in fact, be axiomatic, which leads directly toward the notion of a social contract, which has its own difficulties with respect to mysticism.
Our constitutional contract is not 'mysticism' in any aspect. - We are all required to preserve, protect and defend our Constitution, just as we demand that same oath of all officials, fed, state, or local.
With the greatest of respect, no, we're not. We would be were it a real contract.
Our Constitution is a real contract.
Were our ability to vote, say, contingent upon our defense of the Constitution there would be a lot fewer voters (Hollywood, Berkeley, Madison, Ann Arbor, and Ithica would be practically empty of them).
As I commented, we would have to amend our voting qualifications to reflect our required duty to preserve, protect and defend our Constitution.
After all, no one is presented, at birth, with a copy of the Constitution and a choice as to whether he or she wishes to accept that as life rules.
We are, in effect, presented with that choice at 18, or at naturalization. - Everyone should read our Oath of Citizenship. - All citizens are bound by its provisions.
It isn't a real contract. Anyone can opt out of its requirements and remain a citizen, and many on the radical Left do precisely that.
Yep, we have always allowed many radicals to opt out of its requirements and remain [voting] citizens. - This is a political judgment call. - One that perhaps should be revisited by Amendment.
I would agree with a scheme to present the Constitution to young people as a social contract at the age of majority, although I might point out that up to then they will have been the beneficiaries of that contract anyway without the commensurate demands.
It'll never really be a complete social contract on those bases, although we can certainly do better than we have been at making it so.
Just some thoughts.
I say we are beyond the point of 'thinking' about whether we can afford to cater to anti-constitutional radicals in this country. They have had over a hundred years now to attempt their destruction of our constitutions principles. -- They are winning.
It's time.