I am skimming through a very interesting read for my Graduate Class on the United States Constitution by Pulitzer Prize author and historian Jack N. Rakove titled,Declaring Rights: A Brief History with Documents (The Bedford Series in History and Culture)
I want to quote a passage for you:
After 1776, however, Americans began to think about constitutions in an entirely different sense. In their new view, a constitution was a document adopted at a known moment of historical time and an expression of supreme law that would henceforth regulate what government could and could not do. (p. 3)
I have posted a few times and in a very general sense about some of the current issues and though they are “current” events they are nonetheless historic. From the election of our first African-American President, to the current Supreme Court Judge nominee, history is happening at what seems to be breathtaking speed.
Some are arguing that our government is transforming not only the economic structure but the constitutional structure of our country. I cannot say for sure where I stand at this moment.
What I can say is that President Obama campaigned as a centrist who wanted to “change” America and do so for the best. Some have argued that there has been no change. From the War in Iraq to the War on Terror, spending, ect., little has changed and campaign promises unfulfilled. It seems Obama is an inflated version of Bush.
I don’t want to comment at this time.
Back to my point. Is looking backward to solve the issues of the current time or the future a good idea? Can the Founders really teach us anything about today and would they even want us to try? No one knows for sure.
Perhaps we should not “look back” but “back track” and see how we got here, and is the here and now really the intended or needed destination?
What I mean, well, consider this: We, the United States, have indeed been a “Progressive” nation, but not just the progressive kind that the current “Progressives” might define. Starting with the Magna Carta of 1215 has American political tradition been evolving (in its English roots at first) in a trajectory that is decidedly in favor of Limited Government? Look at the case history (Yes, Government 101, but think about it):
1215 – Magna Carta -first written instrument to limit the power of government (Monach)
1517 – Protestant Reformation – Martin Luther, nation state power, religion
1689 – Declaration of Rights – after the Glorious Revolution, limited Constitution Monarchy for England
1776 – American Revolution – No taxation without representation, challenges authority of Parliament and Monarchy
1787 – Constitutional Convention – Established a stronger central government but one that was to be “limited” in its power
Big leaps and bounds in these few references.But the trail it leaves is clear. The evolution of limited government is there, but since then what has happened? That will be for a later post.
Here’s an interesting article by someone who is/was an Obama supporter: Ted Rall: It’s increasingly evident that Obama should resign.
I have only read a few pieces by Mr. Rall, but he was obviously in my mind a far left thinker. Interesting.
The Constitutional Convention was in 1787, not 1789. My friend David Stewart has written a good book about it entitled “The Summer of 1787″.
Thanks Nate, I fixed that typo. How embarrassing for me. Anyway, I will check out David’s book!
Chris
Chris:
“Some are arguing that our government is transforming not only the economic structure but the constitutional structure of our country. I cannot say for sure where I stand at this moment.”
I would say it’s quite clear what’s going on. Part of what we’re seeing is Obama’s socialist tendencies and part is the economic crisis that is enabling the Federal government to take advantage of the crisis in terms of grabbing power, which is the natural inclination of all governments. That natural inclination is what the Founders’ feared and why we have the checks and balances, the Constitution, and federalism. It is the most brilliant means of governance ever devised.
“Can the Founders really teach us anything about today and would they even want us to try?”
I would say emphatically yes! Though methods and technology change, certain principles are eternal. I think the Founders knew this and, though imperfectly, sought to make those principles foundational in our country’s birth and expected those principles to be passed to subsequent generations.
Richard, first, I added your blog to the roll, I can’t believe I did not have it listed. My apologies!!
I see a national government that started to down this path with Bush in office and Republicans in Congress.
Indeed, it’s hard to argue that the Democrats are not taking us even further down the road to a less democratic and certainly they are targeting our open/free market system.
As far as the Founders. You’re probably right that they can still speak to us today. I’m trying to put today in perspective with the past and without doing so by using presentism.
Chris
Hey Chris – thanks! But where is your roll, I can’t seem to find it? I’ll be happy to reciprocate!
“I see a national government that started to down this path with Bush in office and Republicans in Congress.”
No disagreement here.
I love reading the Founders – their words are so inspirational and prophetic.
Best,
RGW
I am afraid that the new administration will justify almost any action my proclaiming that our Constitution is a “living” document. The problem with “living” things is that they can die.
Pam:
It is also a denial of absolutes. That judicial philosophy allows the courts to “bend interpretation” to fit whatever current social mores are fashionable, instead of going through the (intentionally) long and difficult amendment process.
The Founders allowed for the Constitution to be amended so it could adapt to changing societal needs. But they intended it to be a difficult process so that amendments would be thoroughly debated and examined before changing the Constitution.
Chris – thanks again for the link. I’ve since added your blog on mine as well.
Best,
RGW