I’m tired of seeing people wave little copies of the Constitution and pretending they’re doing something significant.
The Constitution is not a talisman or a magic wand. It doesn’t have mystical powers. It’s more about procedure than policy. That’s one of the main reasons I’m disgusted with Tea Party activists and Glenn Beck clones who think that all we have to do is “return to the Constitution” and all our national problems will go away.
I’m especially nauseated by Latter-day Saints who have based their entire political philosophy on a dubious prophecy about the Constitution hanging by a thread, a statement that appears in no official revelation from the Prophet Joseph Smith and whose meaning is cloudy at best.
Let’s address that last idea first. The whole “hanging by a thread” thing has a certain group of people in Utah flailing about and spouting survivalist gibberish with a rancid tone of sanctimonious piety. If they truly believe in living prophets, I really wish they’d pay attention to what those prophets are saying and, almost as important, what they’re not saying. When was the last time Thomas Monson or Dieter Uchtdorf preached a sermon filled with panic and fear? What has Thomas Monson told us about constitutional threads? Every speech I’ve heard is optimistic and filled with faith. I think those who swear allegiance to obscure prophetic relics to justify political crusades are far more interested in dead prophets than living ones.
So why does the whole constitutional fervor from the far right bother me so much? Do I hate the Constitution? Am I a “living Constitution” kind of guy?
Nope and nope.
The men who participated in the Constitutional Convention firmly believed they were guided by the hand of Providence in their efforts and I believe that, too. I agree with the statement that these were “wise men whom [God] raised up unto this very purpose.” However, I do not believe that inspiration means perfection. As a great constitutional scholar, whose opinion I highly value, Dallin H. Oaks, once wrote:
Reverence for the United States Constitution is so great that sometimes individuals speak as if its every word and phrase had the same standing as scripture. Personally, I have never considered it necessary to defend every line of the Constitution as scriptural. For example, I find nothing scriptural in the compromise on slavery or the minimum age or years of citizenship for congressmen, senators, or the president. President J. Reuben Clark, who referred to the Constitution as “part of my religion,” also said that it was not part of his belief or the doctrine of the Church that the Constitution was a “fully grown document.” “On the contrary,” he said, “We believe it must grow and develop to meet the changing needs of an advancing world.”
– Elder Dallin H. Oaks, “The Divinely Inspired Constitution,” Ensign Magazine, February 1992
This counsel informs my answer to those who ask me whether I am an “originalist” or a “living constitutionalist.” I am most certainly not the latter. I disagree with progressives who torture the language of the Constitution into supporting any policy position they happen to favor, which has the ultimate result of rendering the plain language of the document meaningless. Another wise observer noted:
Saying that the Constitution is a living document is the same as saying we don’t have a Constitution. For rules to mean anything, they must be fixed. How many people would like to play me poker and have the rules be “living”? Depending on “evolving standards,” maybe my two pair could beat your flush.
– Walter E. Williams, “The Law or ‘Good Ideas?’” March, 2005
At the same time, I do not believe that one must contend that the Constitution can only be interpreted by the original intent of those present at the Constitutional Convention in 1787.
Consider the original language of the Constitution in Article 1, Section 2, Paragraph 3:
Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.
This is the section that Dallin Oaks referred to as the “compromise on slavery.” It makes it crystal clear that the original intent of the founders was that slavery was tolerated, and that a slave was considered as only three-fifths of a human being, not eligible to vote.
I welcome the fact that this passage has been superseded by the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments, which abolished slavery and established the idea of one man, one vote. Of course, the idea of one woman, one vote would have to wait until 1920 and the 19th Amendment. A “true” originalist would favor allowing states the right to disenfranchise female voters. I do not.
Still, just “returning to the Constitution” doesn’t really prescribe a remedy to any of the challenges we face. It’s a roadmap for creating policy, but it is not policy itself. In fact, the Constitution is designed to make government woefully inefficient in order to avoid concentrating power in any one source. When you see lawmakers bickering wildly over what ought to be done, you’re seeing the Constitution in action. If you want to see speedy and efficient results, then get yourself a despot and be done with it.
Those who worship the Constitution also seem to forget that it is not the order of things in heaven. I have faith that Jesus will return to the earth as King of Kings, not the Chief Executive of a constitutional government that will require Him to report on the state of the Union to a bicameral legislature endowed with the power to remove Him from office should he commit high crimes and misdemeanors.
As President Obama’s failed administration continues to spiral downward, I am not cheered by the lack of solutions coming from those on the right.
A pocket Constitution waving in the air is not a solution to anything.
Comments are closed.