The Constitution of the United States is a marvelous document.  Let’s take a look at what it is, why it is so enduring, and how we can preserve it.

Historically, it is unprecedented.  When it was created, in the late 18th century, nothing like it existed.  A group of men, equal in rank in society (i.e., there were no aristocrats, no royals), got together and discussed what would be the basic law of the land.  All agreed that the country would be established under the rule of law, and not the rule of a man or men.  At its time in history, this alone was amazing.  And then, rather than declaring it in effect, they went to the citizens of this new land and sought their approving vote to ratify and accept its premises.

What, in fact, is the Constitution?  It is many things, but above all, it is a law about how the laws of the nation will be made, how they will be enforced, and how future actions will be  judged to be in conformity with it.  Fearing the rise of tyrants or dictators, the writers set up three branches of the government—the Congress, the Executive, and the Judiciary—with a balance of power, and means and procedures by which each branch can serve as a check on the others.  Although this sometimes makes changes come slowly, it has served us well, and protected our nation from suffering coups, wars over succession, and instability caused by politicians attempting to seize power beyond that granted in the Constitution.

The document is not perfect; it was written by humans, and filled with compromises that were necessary at the time of drafting, but may seem wrong when viewed through a contemporary lens.  Clearly the 3/5 compromise, acknowledging human slavery and therefore condoning it, was not only wrong, but morally bankrupt.  But the Constitution had an overarching principal, which showed the great wisdom of those who drafted it.  It has a law, recognizing that things change over time, which specifies clear procedures for changing the Constitution by way of Amendment.  In fact, there have been 27 such Amendments, the most recent of which was passed in 1992, just 25 years ago.

One of the well -known provisions led to the establishment of a Supreme Court of the United States, a body which rules on the constitutionality of various laws and legal cases brought to trial under those laws.  The Court consists of nine Justices, each of whom is nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate, and serves for life.  Increasingly, the two political parties, under the influence of their extreme and ideological wings, fight desperately for someone of their ideological persuasion to be the confirmed replacement when a vacancy occurs.  The Republicans want a strict Constitutionalist who views the law as never in need of changing, and Democrats want a progressive, who wants to change the law to meet current thinking when Congress cannot get a law passed which will respond to that thinking.  Clearly times change and laws need to reflect it—in the late 18th century there were no cellphones, no Facebook, no PhotoShop, no genetic engineering, to name a few.  But just as clearly, the Constitution has survived because it does give each branch of government exclusive areas of control, and has an Amendment mechanism requiring broad approval for a change in its provisions.

Why do I bring this up?  It gives one more reason that we need a powerful, centrist force in the country.  The fights over Supreme Court nominees have become an ongoing battle between the two parties. That hurts the chances of getting a Court that balances the need of rule by law without arbitrary change, with an understanding that times do change.

6 thoughts on “Our Marvelous Constitution

  1. We had a tradition for several years of me reading some piece of the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution (esp the Bill of Rights) out loud to the kids on July 4. With them at camp this year…no dice. Will have to make it up later in the summer. But it is, as you say, a remarkable document, and, particularly in times of divided and dysfunctional government, a touchstone to come back to that has improved the lives of billions of people directly and indirectly over 240+ years.

    I have maintained for a while, however, that we are due for a series of new amendments to reflect the world we live in, which is quite different than the world of the founders. I also believe that they would fervently agree with the fact that the document was meant to be a living document and that it was imperfect. Things like non-partisan districting, campaign finance reform or public finance of campaigns, ways to reduce waste, complexity, and silliness in government like a presidential line-item veto, forced simplicity of legislation, even zero-based budgeting of entitlements, should all be on the table. The system has gotten so complex that it needs a major redo.

    In our business, after 18 years (less than 1/10 of the length of the US), we are finding that our platform has so much “technical debt” or “cruft,” as our engineers put it, that we are investing heavily in re-platforming the entire company this year. It will take 12-18 months, and it’s causing us to have to slow our investment in new projects for a little while to get there. But we are already seeing our ability to innovate quickly increase dramatically as we clean house and retire legacy code and modernize our stack.

    America could use a bit of the same work. It’s not fun, and it takes courage to do – something Washington seems to lack.

    Like

    1. Matt–thanks for the comments. I agree with much of what you’ve said, but think a Constitutional Convention could prove unmanageable. I would love to start with one, simple amendment, regulating the States’ ability to gerrymander partisan districts. I believe that would be overwhelmingly approved by voters, and would go a long way to fixing some of our dysfunctional Congress.

      Like

      1. Of course, Congress has to approve a Constitutional amendment by a 2/3 majority in each house. The Senate arguably wouldn\’t care about districting, but the House? Maybe they wouldn\’t mind approving it for 10-20 years out…

        Like

      2. Matt–you are certainly right about House resistance to ending gerrymandering. Your thought of making it take effect in 10 years or more is a good one. Another, with sufficient financial backing (which might be available), would be a national grass roots single issue organization and campaign.

        Like

  2. Times may change but human nature does not and no one today has spent the time the framers of the constitution did in trying to figure out the best form of government after considering what history had provided for them to learn from. A few egocentric jurists and politicians can only make it worse.

    Like

    1. Steve–great to hear from you, and thanks for the comment. Time and wisdom are problems, but they are best solved by a third, centrist party, pragmatic in nature, willing to compromise, and with a time horizon that allows for the development of workable concepts for change and improvement.

      Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s