If sovereignty and freedom are what matter most to the individual, and if individual sovereignty and freedom are dependent on individual’s taking responsibility for their choices, and if individual’s taking responsibility for their choices is dependent on articulated information and education that seeds reason, then I say read that constitution again and again.
Call it ceremonial… I say Bravo Congress…stick to what matters most. A good day…
Gerald Early in Ken Burn's documentary "Jazz" said something like this (I'm paraphrasing; "1,000,000 years from now when archeologists study American society, we will be remembered for two things: jazz music and the U.S. Constitution. Our consitution, although modeled an Roman governments, is unique and historic in it wisdom, simplicity, power, and longevity. The problems begin when fundamentalists wave it around like a bible, and condemn as heretics and blashphemers anyone who wants to interpret it beyond the words on the page. I say that's a problem because the constitution is not being used as a reference, but as justification for a set of political ideas. And because the consitution is so often placed squarely in the forefront of the argument, if you disagree with an opinion you are (a) unfaithful to the constition, and (b) unpatriotic.
ReplyDeleteThe truth is that the arguments over the consitution's meaning, and how to interpret and use it, began simultaneously with its ratification. Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson could not have had more different ideas about what sort of government the constition create. Thomas Jefferson violated the constitution when he purchased the Louisiana Territory. John Adams violated the constitution when he suspended habeus corpus,as did Abraham Lincol. (I' ve never heard Glenn Beck accuse any of those guys as neing unpatriotic.) The reality is, none of us would want to live in an America that adhered strictly and fundamentally to the constituion. The constition does not identify or allow the many services and entitlements that our goverment now offers. A recent poll I heard on NPR asked people if they were in favor of cutting government entitlements. The vast majority said yes. The pollsters then listed all the common entitlements, but noone was able to name what they wanted cut.
The constitution is a wonderful document and our guiding light. But it serves as a reference in the debates going on in our country today. It's not what the argument is about. The argurment is about an interventionist vs laissez faire government. Much has changed since 1787. It might be better to have these discussions, and leave the constition on the sidelines.
Probably won't happen.
For those politicians and talking heads who would use our great consitution to further their political agendas, and question or condemsn those who disagree, I close with a quote by Samuel Johnson, "Patriotiasm is the last refuge of scoundrels."
Hmmm……..The Constitution of the United States of America is the supreme law of the United States. The Constitution is the framework for the organization of the United States government and for the relationship of the federal government with the states, citizens, and all people within the United States. (Wow, I’m quoting wikepedia…my how things have changed.) Sounds sort of important: supreme law of land, framework for organization and relationship between fed gov and states and citizens Probably a good thing to read it outloud from time to time. But I’d read the unabridged form, not the one that omits the 3/5ths unpleasantness. Because if you include the 3/5ths thing you are forced to understand what it was about. That would be a great discussion in itself. (just for a tease it was an “anti-slavery” clause demanded by the north)
ReplyDeleteI was watching Morning Joe this morning while I ironed some shirts. They were talking about the Tucson Arizona shootings and the part that rhetoric played in the shooting. But they weren’t really talking about the part that rhetoric played in the shootings…they were talking about talking about the part that rhetoric played in shootings. I think we do that a lot. We talk about talking about things. I think what we’re trying to do here is actually talk about them. This is not for the faint of heart. It can be uncomfortable. With that understood, here I go.
The constitution is supremely important. It is the very reason that we have an executive branch, a legislative branch and a judicial branch. In fact the judicial branch’s supreme court’s function is to sort out exactly what the constitution means…a whole branch of government devoted to figuring out how to apply a really old, wicked cool bunch of words to stuff that happens today. That is most excellent. Every citizen needs to know that document; every citizen needs to read that document at least annually. I’ve read it once this year. Congress read it once. Go ahead, read it. It’s very cool.
Now what about political rhetoric? The first amendment is pretty clear: have at it. I suppose if a military doctor went on a shooting rampage and shouted out Allah Akbar (God is great) when commiting the act, it would be fair game to assume that it may have been religiously motivated. Probably not so reasonable to assume that political rhetoric of Rush Limbaugh motivated the Tucson murderer without first having knowledge of his radio listening habits. But you know what, I will defend those unreasonable people’s constitutional right to say stupid things…that’s the American way; we get to be stupid.
Hmmm……..The Constitution of the United States of America is the supreme law of the United States. The Constitution is the framework for the organization of the United States government and for the relationship of the federal government with the states, citizens, and all people within the United States. (Wow, I’m quoting wikepedia…my how things have changed.) Sounds sort of important: supreme law of land, framework for organization and relationship between fed gov and states and citizens Probably a good thing to read it outloud from time to time. But I’d read the unabridged form, not the one that omits the 3/5ths unpleasantness. Because if you include the 3/5ths thing you are forced to understand what it was about. That would be a great discussion in itself. (just for a tease it was an “anti-slavery” clause demanded by the north)
ReplyDeleteI was watching Morning Joe this morning while I ironed some shirts. They were talking about the Tucson Arizona shootings and the part that rhetoric played in the shooting. But they weren’t really talking about the part that rhetoric played in the shootings…they were talking about talking about the part that rhetoric played in shootings. I think we do that a lot. We talk about talking about things. I think what we’re trying to do here is actually talk about them. This is not for the faint of heart. It can be uncomfortable. With that understood, here I go.
The constitution is supremely important. It is the very reason that we have an executive branch, a legislative branch and a judicial branch. In fact the judicial branch’s supreme court’s function is to sort out exactly what the constitution means…a whole branch of government devoted to figuring out how to apply a really old, wicked cool bunch of words to stuff that happens today. That is most excellent. Every citizen needs to know that document; every citizen needs to read that document at least annually. I’ve read it once this year. Congress read it once. Go ahead, read it. It’s very cool.
Now what about political rhetoric? The first amendment is pretty clear: have at it. I suppose if a military doctor went on a shooting rampage and shouted out Allah Akbar (God is great) when commiting the act, it would be fair game to assume that it may have been religiously motivated. Probably not so reasonable to assume that political rhetoric of Rush Limbaugh motivated the Tucson murderer without first having knowledge of his radio listening habits. But you know what, I will defend those unreasonable people’s constitutional right to say stupid things…that’s the American way; we get to be stupid.