Posted on 09/15/2011 9:07:34 AM PDT by Kaslin
When it comes to the U.S. Constitution, there’s good news and bad news. (And then some really good news!)
Good news first: As the political debates have sharpened over the past few years—since the rise of the Tea Party movement—more and more Americans are interested in the Constitution. While academics and some limited political circles have always discussed the Constitution and its meaning, it’s striking to see so many ordinary Americans having these conversations—and embracing the ideals of our Founding Fathers and the Constitution itself.
Now the bad news: while interest in the Constitution is growing, few Americans actually know much about what it says. And that has serious downsides. It means that many Americans don’t really understand the rights the Constitution protects or the powers it grants.
For example, in 2009, Oklahoma tested its high school students on their knowledge of civics—including basic ideas about the U.S. Constitution. They failed miserably. Only 28%knew that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land and just 26% identified the Bill of Rights correctly. More than two out of threedid not know that the President heads the executive branch of government and just one in ten correctly identified the length of a Senator’s term. (This is the fruit of school years spent studying social studies, diversity, and world cultures to the neglect of American history and government.)
American adults---including those serving in politics---fare no better when it comes to their knowledge of the Constitution. In early 2011, the Intercollegiate Studies Institutesurveyedadults and college students to assess their civic knowledge. They discovered that ordinary Americans actually scored higher on their knowledge of the Constitution than the elected officials surveyed. For example, fewer than half of the politicians surveyed (46%)“knew that Congress, not the president, has the power to declare war.” Fifty-four percent of ordinary Americans correctly placed the war power in Congress’ hands. The origin of the famous phrase, a “wall of separation" between Church and state, was more frequently misidentified by politicians than by the public: only 15% of politicians knew that the phrase appeared not in the Constitution but in Thomas Jefferson’s letters, while 19% of regular folks did.
So many citizens are unaware not only of the genius at the heart of the American form of governance but also of its specifics. And that’s a dangerous place for our country to be in. Citizens who do not understand their rights---or the limitations of government—can neither defend those rights nor participate meaningfully in the political process. When the Constitutional Convention ended in 1787, someone asked Benjamin Franklinwhether the young country would be a monarchy or a republic. Franklin gave the famous reply, “A Republic, if you can keep it.”
His words hold true today. America is a republic---but all of us must work to keep it that way. How? First, by knowing what the Constitution actually says.
How to Save Your Family: Read the Constitution!
That leads me to the really good news….I’m happy to help Hillsdale in spreading the word that on September 15th, in honor of Constitution Day and our founders’ great wisdom, Hillsdale Collegeis offering a fantastic, free, and easy way for every family to become more familiar with our Constitution: a series of short, but powerful, webcasts called “Introduction to the Constitution.” Simply register at
http://constitution.hillsdale.edu/(or, for an address that’s easier to remember you can log onto www.Hillsdale.eduand look for the promotion) and you’re on the road to informed citizenship.
The Constitution is an amazing document! Your children need to understand this great treasure too—so make sure they watch the Hillsdale series with you (once you sign up you can watch each lecture at your leisure). Another great resource for kids is ConstitutionFacts.com where you’ll find games and children’s activities, and free copies of the Constitution (pay only shipping and handling).
Family by family, let’s cherish our Constitution so that we may continue to enjoy the freedoms that flourish because of it.
“It wasn’t based on a ‘tradition’ or ‘wisdom of the ancients’”
Yes, it was, partly. The Founders were by and large classically educated, and furthermore Greek- and Romaphiles. References to the ancient world abound in the Federalist Papers. Where do you think they got the term “senate” from?
On a more practical level, there is a legal principle known as “time immemorial,” or time out of mind. Aside from the Age of Enlghtenment—which some Founders, like Adams, despised—the Constitution draws on various principles from the Middle Ages and before. English law wasn’t so tied to Roman law as was continental law, but there was a massive influence. Why else all the Latin phrases?
In any case, we weren’t talking about what the Constitution was based on; we were talking about what conservatism was based on.
“What else could you possibly want to conserve any more than the Constitution, the very foundation America?”
The Constitution was the foundation of the U.S., not America. If nothing else, certain political units predating the U.S. persist under the Constitution, which should give you a clue it didn’t come ex nihilo. To answer the question, though, there’s a lot to conserve aside from the Constitution. I’d rather live without a Constitution and with some remenant of traditional morality, for instance, than a Constitution and Anything Goes.
On a more practical level, there is a legal principle known as “time immemorial,” or time out of mind. Aside from the Age of Enlghtenment—which some Founders, like Adams, despised—the Constitution draws on various principles from the Middle Ages and before. English law wasn’t so tied to Roman law as was continental law, but there was a massive influence. Why else all the Latin phrases?
The fact that the founders were educated still didn't cause them to create a system based on older systems. Root language aside, the roman sentate doesn't bear any actual resembelence to the US sentate. Are you honestly suggesting that the constitution was influenced by the "wisdom of the ancients" because of latin phrases?
The Constitution was the foundation of the U.S., not America. If nothing else, certain political units predating the U.S. persist under the Constitution, which should give you a clue it didn’t come ex nihilo. To answer the question, though, there’s a lot to conserve aside from the Constitution..
Most people accept that "America" and the "United States" are synonomous terms. Any political units the predate the constitution were creations of the same people that created the constitution, therefore they have the same basis. Generally speaking nothing springs from nothing, however some things are new and unique, like our constitution.
I’d rather live without a Constitution and with some remenant of traditional morality, for instance, than a Constitution and Anything Goes.
You can't be without our constitution and still have traditional morality. Without a constitution we would live in a tyranny. A tyranny is the good example of an "anything goes" society. It appears that the basis of your comment is a false dicotomy. Can you give an example of traditional morality (meaning that it was practiced in past by Americans)that must be conserved that is not protected by the constitution.
The right to petition the court for a correction of legal error.
It's the right to sue in court. One of governments primary roles was as an arbitrator. The federal government as an administrative arbitrator between the States and the States as arbitrator between people who had legal disagreements....that sort of thing.
In England, this was a prerogative of the lower Royal courts, [and ultimately the King], both of which were known for denying a person this Right on a whim.
I respectfully disagree.
While the 10th is a powerful restricting force, the primary limit is not to be found in the addendum, but in the Constitution itself.
Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17
To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of Particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings
-----
IMHO, this is primary source of federal limitation.
But if the government be national with regard to the operation of its powers, it changes its aspect again when we contemplate it in relation to the extent of its powers.
The idea of a national government involves in it, not only an authority over the individual citizens, but an indefinite supremacy over all persons and things, so far as they are objects of lawful government. Among a people consolidated into one nation, this supremacy is completely vested in the national legislature. Among communities united for particular purposes, it is vested partly in the general and partly in the municipal legislatures. In the former case, all local authorities are subordinate to the supreme; and may be controlled, directed, or abolished by it at pleasure. In the latter, the local or municipal authorities form distinct and independent portions of the supremacy, no more subject, within their respective spheres, to the general authority, than the general authority is subject to them, within its own sphere. In this relation, then, the proposed government cannot be deemed a national one; since its jurisdiction extends to certain enumerated objects only, and leaves to the several States a residuary and inviolable sovereignty over all other objects. It is true that in controversies relating to the boundary between the two jurisdictions, the tribunal which is ultimately to decide, is to be established under the general government. But this does not change the principle of the case. The decision is to be impartially made, according to the rules of the Constitution; and all the usual and most effectual precautions are taken to secure this impartiality.
James Madison, Federalist 39
The federal government had 2 distinct functions. To deal with incoming goods and governments of foreign countries, and to act as a city government for the city-State known as the District of Columbia.
NEVER was it given the ability to pass legislation that affected the entire country......NEVER!
Interesting commentary found on the artist’s site
What I found both amazing and refreshing was the fact that the sign outside our children’s elementary school advertised the fact they would not only recognize Constitution Day, it would be celebrated. (of course, it’s called ‘Christmas’ in the school system and not ‘holiday’ or ‘winter’ break, so you see where I’m coming from)
Now I just need to wait and see what my 4th grade son comes home with from his C.D. activities before I rejoice fully ;)
What a great school your children are going to.
Your foray to the dictionary ios admirable, but misguided. For it cannot help you in this instance. Your confusion is similar to many people’s over “substantive” due process. That is, you confuse something which leads to freedom with freedom itself. Non-establishment is not a freedom, though it does leave you free from state religion.
“The fact that the founders were educated still didn’t cause them to create a system based on older systems”
I won’t make a claim for cause and effect, but they certainly did base it on older systems. It is absolutely impossible to imagine the Constitution outside the context of English law, which itself evolved partly from the Roman model. Not so much as were continental systems, but to some degree.
Whatever was new, and obviously there were unpracticed ideas, yes, came out of the Enlightenment, or however you want to put it. But that, as well, you have to recognize as being inspired partly by English whiggishness. No very precise measurement is available for what was purely American, but it hardly matters for present purposes. Suffice to say they didn’t invent a whole new system out of nothing, and I wouldn’t, nor should anyone, want them to.
“Are you honestly suggesting that the constitution was influenced by the ‘wisdom of the ancients’ because of latin”
Absolutely. Or, rather, those phrases are concrete and widely recognized evidence of that influence. There is no way all those old words could travel circa 1,300 years just by happenstance, without their underlying meaning being useful and understood. Nevermind the words themselves, if they aren’t persuasive. Get it straight from the horses’ mouths, as it were. The Founders and Framers were explicit about their debt to the ancients, as they were to their religion, whiggishness, etc.
“Most people accept that ‘America’ and the ‘United States’ are synonomous terms.”
No they don’t. That’s why history books start with Jamestown or Plymouth Rock instead Philadelphia, 1787.
“Any political units the predate the constitution were creations of the same people that created the constitution”
Not exactly, but okay.
“therefore they have the same basis”
What’s your point?
“Generally speaking nothing springs from nothing, however some things are new and unique, like our constitution”
I don’t want to quibble over how much was old or new. It’s obvious to me—I might say violently obvious—that it comes from larger previous ideas. And I’m not talking about how there’s nothing new under the sun, or that the more things change the more they stay the same. I’m saying the ideas have been around for a long time, if shrouded by centuries of feudal detritus in Europe. The pioneer spirit, the Western frontier, American exceptionalism, and blah, blah, blah made it happen. But the law, moreso than other cultural institutions, grows over time. Lightning bolts of newness are not so sudden as they seem. I should have thought conservatives, of all people, would think so.
This wasn’t the original argument, by the way. At first I was trying to get across the point that conservatism is bigger than the Constitution. I brought up the Western tradition, “the glory that was Greece and the grandeur that was Rome,” and Christianity not as things which subsume the Constitution, or merely as things that stand before it, but as things which stand apart. That is, other sources of inspiration, learning, and the spirit of preservation.
One of the arguments for conservatism’s being bigger than the Constitution, but only a very limited argument, is that the Constitution itself derives from previous ideas, like those suggested by my short list. I could just as easily argue that the Constitution is all well and good for politics, but conservatism isn’t a political ideology. It’s a worldview, as they say, and has significance for the whole of life.
So if you want to conserve within politics, by all means defend the Constitution. I tend to think it’s too late; not that I want it to be, but can you really imagine going back? Anyway, if that’s the only thing you can think of worth conserving, I don’t think you’re much of a conservative. An idolator, more like.
“The federal government had 2 distinct functions. To deal with incoming goods and governments of foreign countries, and to act as a city government for the city-State known as the District of Columbia.”
That’s not true, and I think you know it. How is it possible you’re not aware it had the power to govern relations between the states, as well?
“You can’t be without our constitution and still have traditional morality.”
Yes you can. That’s what we have now.
“Without a constitution we would live in a tyranny.”
Perhaps, but tyranny doesn’t mean no moral order. I’m not going to say it’s conducive to moral life, but it doesn’t preclude it. The moral order is bigger than that.
You’re looking things backwards. Without a certain moral order, and various preexisting cultural institutions based on that order, there couldn’t be a Constitution. Ivory tower intellectuals could write one speculatively, but it’d never have force. Moreover, the Constitution needs a moral order to persist. The Founders were explicit on this count, and I agree. Laws are empty without qualified men to administer them and educated men to follow them.
It may not require angels, and no men are angels. But it does require knowledge of what constitutes freedom and duty. It does require general moral order to understand correct political order. It does require “eternal vigilence,” which can only be worthwhile when you know what to be vigilent about.
The law itself does not protect us from tyranny. It cannot, for men will not follow the law just because it exists. I offer as evidence their not having followed the Constitution, which now persists as a animatronic skeleton. it has no soul left, because men failed it, for various reasons. They failed it because they didn’t maintain the ideas, the moral ideas, behind it.
“A tyranny is the good example of an ‘anything goes’ society.”
Like I said, I’m not going to say it’s conducive to moral order. Tyrannies aren’t necessarily degenerate. The important thing, though, is that, again, you’re twisted up. Even if tyranny leads to Anything Goes—for the government, at least—the Constitution doesn’t lead to morality. Constitutions can lead directly to tyranny, by being defenseless. Morality led to the Constitution, and only morality can preserve it. It cannot preserve itself.
“Can you give an example of traditional morality (meaning that it was practiced in past by Americans)that must be conserved that is not protected by the constitution.”
Is this a serious question? I couldn’t possibly. The Constitution protects various things worth protecting, directly or indirectly, mostly by suggestion. But it barely brushes by in a canoe the coast of an island of the continent of traditional morality. You can talk about the first amendment protecting free expression, art, religion, the critical attitude, thought itself, etc. But that’s loose talk. No one would know what to do with the floor of freedom to speak, which within Western culture (as butressed by traditional morality) can rise to the heavens, or stay put right there on the cold concrete. Nothing in the Constitution says what happens next, after people can express themselves.
I can sum up what I’’m trying to get across, perhaps, by pointing out that, as our president says, the Constitution is a document of “negative liberties.” It briefly lays out the state’s responsiblities to its citizens, but mostly it says what the state can and can’t do. It doesn’t say what its citizens can or should do once the system is in place. That is basically up to us. You can infer from what the Bill of Rights chooses to protect what’s important to us. Religion, speech, guns, etc. Though this is misleading, since those things were chosen partly because they are especially important to resisting government.
Only if you mean the ability to arbitrate between the entities of the States and NOT the physical States themselves.
If that's the case, you are correct and the error was mine. I should have said 3.
“Only if you mean the ability to arbitrate between the entities of the States and NOT the physical States themselves.”
Yes, I meant the states as political entities. I’m not sure how the physical territory of the states are supposed to have relations with eachother.
I wonder if any of them are bullet proof. If not, they might not want to push us too far.
We are not without a constitution.
Perhaps, but tyranny doesn’t mean no moral order. I’m not going to say it’s conducive to moral life, but it doesn’t preclude it. The moral order is bigger than that.
There can't be a moral order within a tyranny by the definition of tyranny. If the government has no moral authority then there can't be a moral order. Individuals could still be moral, and society could still be orderly, after all the trains ran on time during fascist rule, but that doesn't make it a "moral order".
You’re looking things backwards. Without a certain moral order, and various preexisting cultural institutions based on that order, there couldn’t be a Constitution. Ivory tower intellectuals could write one speculatively, but it’d never have force. Moreover, the Constitution needs a moral order to persist. The Founders were explicit on this count, and I agree. Laws are empty without qualified men to administer them and educated men to follow them.
Define these preexisting cultural institutions. I can think of one founder that said "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other" and while it is a true statement, the same applies to any form of government.
Like I said, I’m not going to say it’s conducive to moral order. Tyrannies aren’t necessarily degenerate. The important thing, though, is that, again, you’re twisted up. Even if tyranny leads to Anything Goes—for the government, at least—the Constitution doesn’t lead to morality. Constitutions can lead directly to tyranny, by being defenseless. Morality led to the Constitution, and only morality can preserve it. It cannot preserve itself.
Tyrannies are inherently immoral. Nothing inherently immoral leads to moral order except perhaps as a result of it being overthrown and typically not even then. I never said that the constitution leads to morality. No government can make a people moral, however, a moral form of government presents the best environment for individuals to be moral.
Is this a serious question? I couldn’t possibly.
Finally something we agree on.
It doesn’t say what its citizens can or should do once the system is in place.
Nor should it. The people tell the government what to do once the system is in place.
I can sum up what I’’m trying to get across, perhaps, by pointing out that, as our president says, the Constitution is a document of “negative liberties”.
Except the President's opinion, like on many issues, is so wrong that the opposite is correct. The constitution absolutely states with perfect clarity both the purpose and the powers of Government. The President, like so many good democrats has the constitution on it's head. What he wants it to mean is that the Government has any power not clearly limited by the constitution.
I'm starting to think you don't even understand the premise of the constitution. Our system of constitutional government was not created to enforce some sort of traditional morality that you can't define, it was created as a moral form of government that protects the freedoms and liberties of the people that created it.
The freedoms of the American people are not completely listed in the constitution. The legitimate powers of government are completely listed.
The constitution wasn't created to make people moral, to enforce morality past its enumerated powers, or to ensure people stay moral. No system of government can do this, and it would be immoral for any government to try. We the people are responsible for our own morality, we are responsible for the morality of their children, and are responsible for keeping the immoral from usurping the constitution.
dag... his moniker is Arrogantbastard, so i’d say PATT... but when he’s right, he’s right.
t
I am not confused at all, therefore your post is meaningless.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.