Posted By Joshua Keating Share

The Economist's Lexington makes a provocative case that Americans' veneration of the Constitution and its framers has become unhealthy: 

When history is turned into scripture and men into deities, truth is the victim. The framers were giants, visionaries and polymaths. But they were also aristocrats, creatures of their time fearful of what they considered the excessive democracy taking hold in the states in the 1780s. They did not believe that poor men, or any women, let alone slaves, should have the vote. Many of their decisions, such as giving every state two senators regardless of population, were the product not of Olympian sagacity but of grubby power-struggles and compromises—exactly the sort of backroom dealmaking, in fact, in which today’s Congress excels and which is now so much out of favour with the tea-partiers.

More to the point is that the constitution provides few answers to the hard questions thrown up by modern politics. Should gays marry? No answer there. Mr Klarman argues that the framers would not even recognise America’s modern government, with its mighty administrative branch and imperial executive. As to what they would have made of the modern welfare state, who can tell? To ask that question after the passage of two centuries, says Pietro Nivola of the Brookings Institution, is to pose an impossible thought experiment.

Lexington aims his critique at the tri-corner hat wearing faction of the Tea Party movement but I think the sentiment he identifies can be found across the political spectrum. While some portions of the U.S. Constitution are frankly antiquated (see the Onion's brilliant take on the "third amendment rights" movement) it's hard to imagine anyone on even the extreme right or left of the American political spectrum proposing that the document be fundamentally revamped beyond proposing specific amendments.

I also suspect most Americans don't realize quite how old the Constitution is by world standards. (An advantage of never being invaded or having your government overthrown.) It's by far the world's oldest and the only one from the 18th century that's still in use. (Your Wikipedia trivia fact for the day: Norway has the world's second oldest constitution from 1814.) Most of the other largest democracies -- India, Brazil, Japan, Germany, Mexico -- have constitutions drafted in the 20th century. 

But "the Constitution" in American political discourse, as opposed to the actual document, is often shorthand for the speaker's conception of American political values, and in that sense, the U.S. isn't really much of an outlier. France has had about a dozen constitutions over the life span of the American version, but leaders still regularly invoke the "values of the Republic."

Finally, Americans may revere their Constitution so much because, despite its flaws, it's a very well-written document addressing universal themes. As Christopher Hitchens has argued, a document beginning "We the people of the United States" is bound to inspire more loyalty and fervor than the EU's recent foray, which starts uninspiringly with, "His Majesty the King of the Belgians."

NICHOLAS KAMM/AFP/Getty Images

EXPLORE:POLITICS
 

SLANEY BLACK

1:27 PM ET

September 24, 2010

It's not well-written

Finally, Americans may revere their Constitution so much because, despite its flaws, it's a very well-written document addressing universal themes

I don't agree at all. The Bill of Rights and Reconstruction amendments - which to be fair is what most people mean when they say "The Constitution" - are very well-written documents addressing universal themes.

The actual body of the Constitution is rather awful. The doctrine of strong separation of powers embodied in it was untested at the time and has not worked out that impressively. The structures created by it are nearly as awkward and a priori as the various French Revolutionary constitutions.

Hardly any provision is made for provision of public goods (this is the Tea Partiers' favorite part). And the damn thing is too hard to change.

Notably, every foreign state that adopted a US-style constitution has either altered it radically, or is a basket case, or both. We don't even recommend that structure to our neocolonies anymore. Iraq has a Westminster system. The new Afghan and Kenyan constitutions have presidential systems only against the advice of the State department.

In short, the thing is a dog's dinner. And it has specific, real detrimental effects on our foreign policy. The overweight given to small inland states in the senate encourages cloddishness and jingoism. The president's lack of legislative initiative limits the kind of promises he can make to foreign leaders - sticks are easy, carrots are very hard. And the retrograde method of filling executive appointment means that new presidents waste months without proper staffing, while incompetent secretaries cannot be simply removed by a vote of no confidence (e.g. Rumsfeld). In fact, presidents have an incentive to keep underperformers around, because filling their replacements is so difficult.

In short, the US constitution is terrible.

 

CEOUNICOM

8:14 PM ET

September 24, 2010

Yeah...

...and you have a Queen, douchebag

 

SLANEY BLACK

12:09 AM ET

September 25, 2010

I have a queen?

Besides Michelle Bachmann?

 

THEENDISFAR

6:21 PM ET

September 25, 2010

The Two Party System is what sucks

What many people, Keating included, do not understand is that the US Constitution is a CONTRACT and it should be taken very seriously.

A Contract between the States United, created by We the People, guaranteeing a Republican form of Government. Read Federalist 39 to see how it was defined 220 years ago. The 3rd to last paragraph is extremely important and shows the Feds have NO AUTHORITY over Citizens, only over the ENUMERATED delegations which are few and specific.

Rigidity is a good thing when your Life, Liberty, or Property is at stake. A Living Contract is nothing more than a License over the actions or property of a person. 13th Amendment and Inalienable Rights prevent this.

The author has fallen into the same trap as many and that is the Limitlessness of a Rule of Law. The US Constitution is a CONTRACT of NO.

If it is not in Article 1 Section 8, then NO!

If it is against the Principle of Self-Government, then NO!

Is it Prohibited to the Feds or State? NO!

Can't afford it? NO!

Many people site the 10th Amendment, which is very well explained in the Kentucky Resolution of 1798, but the 9th is the most important IMHO. We are all Sovereigns by Nature and the US Constitution is just a Contract, an alliance, between Diverse men and women to give us the Strength to keep it that way.

However, that being said I wholeheartedly agree that a Constitutional Convection to;

1. Figure out what the Notes, Papers, Letters, etc of the late 1700's reveal about the true meaning and Limits of this Constitution (Contract).

2. Translate it into 21st Century English.

3. Determine if any Amendment or Act is Unnecessary or Contrary to the core Principles of the True Meaning and Limits (16th, 17th, 14th, Fed Reserve, etc)

4. Rewrite and ratify from findings.

As for age, Self-Government is as old as Reason itself, and that is no reason to abandon it.

 

THEENDISFAR

6:02 PM ET

September 26, 2010

Contract

Definition: an agreement between two or more parties for the doing or not doing of something specified.

It is precisely a contract. I first noticed once I took the time to reread the Declaration of Independence, The US Constitution, and most of the writings (Notes Const Convention, Federalist Papers, letters of Founders, Wealth of Nations, etc).

I'm Systems Architect and I saw the similarities between Contracts to implement ERP systems and the Service Level Agreements (SLA's) to keep them healthy and the Constitution. The Constitution is a Contract and SLA rolled into one.

The States had to ratify it, I'm not clear as to what you mean by "it was issued by the Federal Gov't".

Read the notes of the Convention June 19th, 1787 and Federalist Paper 39 for some clarity as to what the Federal Function is.

The Contract + SLA was created to do precisely what you mentioned above, given as few responsibilities necessary to created a Federal Republic to Protect our Liberties.

Are you arguing semantics?

 

THEENDISFAR

9:19 AM ET

September 27, 2010

Are you saying that it was defunct from the start?

I like the definition you give as well, it is less vague. It does however cause a conundrum, if you're not 'competent' then you're not capable of entering a contract. What then? Are you not subject to the same conduct of competent persons?

A simple resolution is to look to Natural Law and subject incompetent persons to the charge of competent ones. Any person dependent upon another for livelihood or those habitually infringing upon the inalienable rights of others would be considered incompetent.

Having only 'land owners' of the period able to vote follows this ideology, the ability to jail or punish Natural Law breakers does as well. Arbitrary Law does not fit in a such a Contract IMHO.

The US Constitution is "an agreement to do or omit to do a certain act." Article 1 Sections 8, 9, & 10 are exactly that. Amendments 1 - 10 go farther with the 9th describing Self-Government.

I agree that it is more than "an agreement etc" as it also gives procedures which is why I included the SLA in the definition as well. You can call them Rules of Behavior (RoB) if you like, the objective is to Organize and Maintain the Contract.

An argument that it was never agreed upon "by the People" can be made, but it was Ratified by the Several Sovereign Republics known as 'States'. The 'We the People' was meant to recognize power came from the People as defined by a Republic (see Fed Paper 39, et al).

I think reinforcing the Federal aspect is the Point. Nationalizing it lends more power over the people which is precisely what has been occurring "Progressively' since 1860.

Knowing that ALL systems in nature are imperfect, an SLA, or RoB if you like, is necessary to accommodate for imperfections. That being said, I'm glad the Founders used the term 'Constitution' as it is a "system of Fundamental Principles". Even if you consider it 'Living' once you deviate from the 'Fundamental Principles' then you have dissolved the Foundations that made it useful. It ceases to be a 'Constitution'.

That begs the question, what are the Fundamental Principles?

Self-Government as most if not all of the dialog leading up to it make clear, or the Welfare State, Central Planning, and Oligarchy that is being practiced?

The Kentucky Resolution of 1798 is a good example of an argument for Self-Government and a LIMITED Federal Gov't.

 

DAHNI

12:01 AM ET

September 27, 2010

Constitution

I think it is a very good document to work from in trying to establish and maintain a civilization which so many Americans are able to live in pretty good conditions when compared to the rest of the world. I'm always ready to improve, though, so please offer a better system/set of guidelines that have a chance of improving the American system.

Any suggested change must benefit the majority of Americans, though. If you have nothing positive to add, please enjoy being someone who can at least try to destroy what is appreciated by most Americans.

 

Passport, FP’s flagship blog, brings you news and hidden angles on the biggest stories of the day, as well as insights and under-the-radar gems from around the world.

Read More