September 17 is Constitution Day, marking the anniversary of its 1787 signing. Schools will teach about the Constitution, but not for the obvious reason. Their reason will be that it is now required of every educational institution receiving federal aid. However, they won’t teach about the irony of that requirement, which came from the man described as the Senate’s leading Constitutional scholar, yet clearly conflicts with the Constitution.
In 2004, Senator Robert Byrd (D.-W.Va.) inserted the requirement into a pork-filled spending bill that was blatantly inconsistent with Americans’ general welfare, which is the Constitution’s rationale. It also clearly overstepped the 10th Amendment’s restriction of the federal government to only its enumerated powers.
His ‘solution’ aside, however, Senator Byrd is correct about our insufficient Constitutional knowledge. In one National Constitution Center poll, while two-thirds of adults said detailed knowledge of it was ‘absolutely essential,’ only one in six claimed such knowledge.
Unfortunately, Americans know too little about our Constitution to maintain the freedoms it was designed to protect. Instead, our ignorance leads us to sacrifice rights out of undue deference to majority rule.
America’s Constitution is a far cry from establishing majority rule. Our founders did believe in voting to select who should be entrusted with the power of government, but the more important question they asked was what powers will ‘We, the people’ delegate to the federal government to exercise on our behalf? That is why so much of the Constitution, particularly the Bill of Rights, is devoted to what the government is not allowed to do, regardless of majority sentiment. As Jefferson said, our founders fought not for democracy, but for government ‘tied down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution.’
The Constitution contains multiple non-majority rules to protect Americans against federal abuses, such as presidential veto power and the supermajorities required to change the Constitution. Its defense is the rationale for the Supreme Court’s power to strike down unconstitutional laws, regardless of how many congressional votes they received. That reflected our founders’ antipathy toward pure majority rule.
James Madison said ‘democracies…have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths.’ Thomas Jefferson warned that ‘[an] elective despotism was not the government we fought for,’ and that ‘The majority, oppressing an individual, is guilty of a crime, abuses its strength, and by acting on the law of the strongest, breaks up the foundations of society.’ Alexander Hamilton asserted that ‘Real liberty is not found in the extremes of democracy.’
However, many today feel that our founders’ opposition to unlimited democracy can be squared with political determination of everything by saying, ‘also protecting the rights of the minority.’ But our lack of Constitutional knowledge means that believing in protecting the rights of minorities does not actually protect them when they are outvoted.
Since Americans don’t clearly understand their Constitutional rights against government abuse, the habit of deference to political majorities results in those rights being steamrollered whenever more than 50% vote to do so. Examples are plentiful because, despite the Constitution’s imposition of strictly limited, enumerated federal powers, there is no area it does not now reach, if not dominate. And with our protections eroding, majority voting controls more and more of what our founders thought they had put off limits to political determination.
Americans’ inattention to the highest law of the land puts our essential rights and liberties at risk, as we can’t effectively defend what we only vaguely know. Unless we begin taking them as seriously as our founders and vigorously defend the Constitutional safeguards that maintain them, our system of self-government will continue eroding. But when we don’t even recognize the irony of a federal mandate to promote understanding the Constitution, when that mandate is inconsistent with the Constitution, we are far from that point.
{ 14 comments }
I am astonished at the level of information about the Constitution. Most people are unaware that the phrase ‘all men are created equal’ appears nowhere in the Constitution nor for that matter does ‘separation of church and state’.
In 1987, during the bicentennial of the Constitution, some people set up a table at a mall in Rhode Island and asked passersby to sign a petition. Most refused saying it was too general. It was the Bill of Rights.
Well, the literal phrase “seperation of church and state” doesn’t appear, but the spirit of it does, in the first amendment. “Congess shall make no law…”
Actually, now that I think about it, there should have stopped that amendment right there!
Agreeing wholeheartedly with Steve, now that it’s blindingly obvious that constitutionalism is teh fail, can we either go back to monarchy or just scrap the whole “state” project entirely?
Gary Galles says: “Unless we begin taking them as seriously as our founders and vigorously defend the Constitutional safeguards that maintain them, our system of self-government will continue eroding.”
Some would say that your false collectivist beliefs are the true reasons for the erosion of liberty. As much as I would like to live in such a world you champion (as compared to this one), I know better than to believe in the Santa Claus aspect of the deal.
I don’t believe he can fly around the world in a single night any more than I believe that criminals hiding within unaccountable institutions are motivated to provide goods and services in a selfless manner. To insist otherwise, is to practice self-deception, by ignoring the rational self-interest of criminals, and also by ignoring “what is” actually happening, instead focusing on “what ought to be” happening.
Personally, I consider this judging of actions by the intention of the actors instead of their consequences, to be an exercise in moot, being the bane of every social improver who tries to fit others into their mold. They challenge others’ consequences, but never their own. (Introspection is not a requirement for saving the world, it seems.)
The main problem I see with your view, is the incoherence of idea of a collectivist “self-government.” There has never been, and can never, ever, be such a thing. Self-government lies solely within the individual, and no where else. At least, that is, if we are to believe that words have actual meaning.
You can call it self-government all you want, but it simply isn’t. You can believe it is self-government all you want, but that won’t make it so. Or, you can let go of the fallacy, and recognize, like George Washington did, that it is nothing but an external force, capable of destroying liberty.
Until such a time that the idea of collectivist self-government is seen as illegitimate, there will never be a truly functional version of it. What is called “self-government” will only be a trap to bind those who, for whatever reason, choose to believe in Santa Claus.
While it is sad that so many Americans are ignorant of the Constitution, I don’t think that it matters. The ink wasn’t even dry on the Constitution when President Adams signed the Alien and Sedition Act in 1798 which forbade the publication of “false, scandalous, and malicious writing” against the government or its officials. Apparently, no one in Congress got around to reading the First Amendment. The people knew the Constitution then and Jefferson drafted the Virgina Resolutions in response to the Alien and Sedition Acts, which introduced nullification as a check on government power. Secession was also an option to limit the central government as the New England states threatened secession in 1803 in response to the Lousiana Purchase and again in 1812 in response to the war. There were more instances of nullification over the Tariff of Abominations in 1828 and the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850. Yet all such threats of secession and nullification ended in 1865.
I think this Lysander Spooner comment on the Constitution most trenchant-”But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain — that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist.” I agree with Spooner and Mike, who echoes Hans Hermann Hoppe-let’s admit the error of this document and either have a king or anarcho-capitalism. I vote for the latter.
I initially thought that Jefferson wrote the Virginia Resolves since he is so identified as a Virginian, but it was actually James Madison who wrote them. Jefferson wrote the Kentucky Resolves. Both were written in 1798 and 1799.
There are quite a few articles in Wikipedia addressing the issues so I will give the link which lists them. All are enlightening about the attempt to enable states to interpose themselves between the Feds and the citizens of the States to protect them from unconstitutional federal laws. In 1803 in Marbury vs Madison the Courts ruled that only the Supreme Court could rule on the Constitutionality of laws passed by the Congress.
You and I know that each of can decide for ourselves whether a power sought by the Congress is among those powers listed in Article 1 Section 8 and in fact elected Congressmen take an oath to assume that responsibility themselves. Instead these days they abandon that responsibility and delegate that to those who wear the black robes up the street.
Ron Paul is one of the very few exceptions and it is Paul’s record of casting the sole “No!” vote over 300 times which has kindled the passion of those who became his supporters.
I think that Gary Johnson, former two term governor of New Mexico who is seeking the Republican nomination for president, also shares Ron Paul’s devotion to the Constitution and his understanding of the oath of office. Johnson is prochoice whereas Paul does not recognize the right of a woman to end her pregnancy, blinded by his focus on the life issue and failing to make the distinction between a potential human being and an actual human being to begin with.
Tom Wood’s, in his book entitled “Nullification” believes that widespread adoption of the proper understanding of the role of the states in refusing to enforce unconstitutional laws is the way to restore our limited constitutional republic.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ASearch&search=kentucky+resolution+1798
“Its defense is the rationale for the Supreme Court’s power to strike down unconstitutional laws, regardless of how many congressional votes they received.”
Rationale? Yes, but legitimate rationale? Arguably not. The Constitution narrowly defined the role of the Court in Article III. As Jefferson put it:
“You seem … to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men, and not more so. They have, with others, the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps…. Their power [is] the more dangerous as they are in office for life, and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves.”
In 1987, during the bicentennial of the Constitution, some people set up a table at a mall in Rhode Island and asked passersby to sign a petition. Most refused saying it was too general. It was the Bill of Rights.
I remember seeing something like that on TV years ago (probably about the same time frame): some guys walked around the streets of New York asking people what they thought of some statements, and most people said they thought it sounded “Communist”. Again, it was the Bill of Rights.
I have sent this to you for you may have the reality to know that time is not on our side anymore and we seek your help please. Our forefathers have left us no future because of being sheep and having the wool pulled over their eyes by a false democracy, they should have listen to the hippies not representative and this environmental damage would not be happening. But there is only one way for us to go the Individual two-third majority vote self-government. I have created a self-governing constitution for all countries to govern by to save their environment, culture, countries and all living things. Rule by the people not representatives that have been the major cause of the destruction of this planet. Only the people as individual together may we have a chance to save our home for home is not four walls. Laziness will be our down fall. If you can think of a better solution to save all living things we would like to hear it? If not make history by saving our planet for our children to have a future for money is not everything. If you are a religious person your god would not like what he is seeing for he would not like you letting he’s creation being destroyed with out a fight, we believe he put us here to save all living things not to destroy it. Praying will not get you to heaven, but doing right by your fellow man may.
Thanks for your time, for time is not on our side anymore, help me to help you or we will loss everything, this ball is in your court now what will you do? Nothing is not an option.
Regards, Bill Realph.
Sent and recieved emails are recorded for public view by the Last political party Australia, underground.
I have sent this to you for you may have the reality to know that time is not on our side anymore and we seek your help please. Our forefathers have left us no future because of being sheep and having the wool pulled over their eyes by a false democracy, they should have listen to the hippies not representative and this environmental damage would not be happening. But there is only one way for us to go the Individual two-third majority vote self-government. I have created a self-governing constitution for all countries to govern by to save their environment, culture, countries and all living things. Rule by the people not representatives that have been the major cause of the destruction of this planet. Only the people as individual together may we have a chance to save our home for home is not four walls. Laziness will be our down fall. If you can think of a better solution to save all living things we would like to hear it? If not make history by saving our planet for our children to have a future for money is not everything. If you are a religious person your god would not like what he is seeing for he would not like you letting he’s creation being destroyed with out a fight, we believe he put us here to save all living things not to destroy it. Praying will not get you to heaven, but doing right by your fellow man may.
Thanks for your time, for time is not on our side anymore, help me to help you or we will loss everything, this ball is in your court now what will you do? Nothing is not an option.
Regards, Bill Realph.
Sent and recieved emails are recorded for public view by the Last political party Australia, underground.
Peter said:
“I remember seeing something like that on TV years ago (probably about the same time frame): some guys walked around the streets of New York asking people what they thought of some statements, and most people said they thought it sounded “Communist”. Again, it was the Bill of Rights.”
And yet there was a poll, and most people thought “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need” was from the Constitution. Both polls probrably asked the same people.
Happy Constitution Day everyone!
I keep a copy of it on my porch. It says “WELCOME”.
Without the social and financial means, we are powerless to correct constitutional transgressions. If the government wants to take ones’ constitutional rights away, all the government has to do is isolate you socially and keep you unemployed (or underemployed) This is happening to thousands of people every day. It is happening to me at this moment. You people are discussing classroom constitutionality. The real world works quite differently. Especially for black people.
Comments on this entry are closed.