Some suggestions are simply senseless. One recent proposal in Virginia calls for an investigation into the feasibility of an alternate form of state currency -- just in case there is a "a major breakdown of the Federal Reserve System." One would think that this was precluded by Article I, section 8, which specifically grants to Congress the power "[t]o coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures." Apparently this provision is somewhat more ambiguous to Republican Delegate Bob Marshall, though thankfully not to Republican Governor Bob McDonnell. Though Gov. McDonnell may be correct in asserting that "proposals like Marshall's arise out of fear about frightening levels of debt the federal government has taken on," deliberate attempts to infringe on constitutionally federal prerogatives are hardly the solution.
Far more problematic, however, are the arguments designed to cast "strict constitutionalism" as the only permissible method of interpretation of the Constitution. Because of the complexity of the document itself and the profundity of the issues involved, there are many reasonable approaches to constitutional interpretation that depend on many diverse factors. While both liberal and conservative theories of the Constitution have varying degrees of validity and applicability, however, "strict constitutionalism" is particularly dubious because it often coincides with ignorance or obfuscation of the actual Constitution. In order to be a "strict constitutionalist," it often seems as though one must change the Constitution so that the text can say what it already means. This hardly seems to make sense. Moreover, it is alarming in light of how many 'errors' "strict constitutionalists" have found in the Founding Fathers' handiwork. "Strict constitutionalism" thus appears to be defined by a limited reverence for the Constitution -- a respect that apparently extends only to the point at which the document's provisions depart from a preconceived conservative ideology. It is disingenuous (and downright illogical) for "strict constitutionalists" to claim that the Constitution must be changed in order to be harmonized with its own principles.
Two recent examples merit consideration. First, numerous strict constitutionalists are currently advocating for changes to provisions of the 14th Amendment. One of the more extreme approaches is found in Arizona, where several state legislators have taken it upon themselves to alter federal immigration laws. This is not to say, of course, that proposing or supporting an actual amendment to the Constitution is somehow improper; it was truly a stroke of genius on the part of the Founders to provide for thoughtful, deliberate modification of our governing compact. Moreover, the debate concerning immigration is important and evokes powerful feelings on both sides. It is certainly a debate that our country needs to have, and solutions must be found for the problems that everyone agrees exist. Circumventing or violating the Constitution for the sake of expediency, however, is clearly not an acceptable answer. Purporting to preserve the constitutional design by openly rejecting its mandates is even more perverse.
More perplexing is the strict constitutionalists' quest to repeal the 17th Amendment, which provides for popular election of United States Senators. Prior to the adoption of this amendment in 1913, senators were elected by state legislatures rather than the people themselves. Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT), Rep. Steve Southerland (R-FL), failed candidates Sharron Angle and Joe Miller, and conservative commentators such as Tony Blankley have all expressed support for the repeal of the 17th amendment. Their argument, apparently, is that popular election by the people of the state leads to the eventual corruption of senators by Washington elites. The causal connection between these events, however, is rarely made clearer than that (likely for good reason).
There are two problems with this stance, one empirical and one philosophical. First, that the electorate would be better off if state legislatures selected the state's senators presumably assumes that state legislators are never corrupt or subject to undue political influence. It hardly seems necessary to show that this assumption is absurd. While many -- even most -- state elected officials are dedicated public servants who discharge their duties with diligence and integrity, it is difficult to see how vesting politicians with the power to select other representatives is ever better insulation against corruption than submitting the decision to the people they will serve.
More fundamentally, the proposals to repeal the 17th Amendment are philosophically at odds with the values that strict constitutionalists purport to hold. For instance, it is unclear why the conservative rallying cry of "limited government" applies only to the federal government. It is an undeniably essential part of our national character to be suspicious of government action and jealous of our liberties, as such dispositions promote transparency, fairness, and liberty in a republic. Yet shouldn't this suspicion also extend to state governments, who often exercise even broader powers than Congress? After all, while conservative groups prefer to demonize Washington, our history is replete with instances in which the federal government was called upon to protect individual rights from infringement by the states (the clearest examples, of course, being the abolition of slavery and the eradication of Jim Crow laws).
Moreover, recent events in Alabama, Alaska, California, Illinois, and New York certainly call into question the wisdom of blindly trusting non-federal elected officials. Thomas Jefferson once declared that he "kn[ew] of no safe depository of the ultimate powers of society but the people themselves and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform them." It is hard to see how revoking citizens' rights to directly elect their United States Senators would ensure better federal representation.
Our Constitution is both the shortest and oldest written constitution of any nation. The sweep of its brilliant -- and frankly beautiful -- language was meticulously crafted to build a flexible and evolving document, a charter to stand the test of time that would allow the nation to grow and prosper. As our society changes, new ideas and constitutional interpretations are sure to develop and take hold. As Thomas Jefferson stated,
"I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and constitutions, but laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors."
Yet "strict constitutionalism" is not an idea born of reasoned reflection, studious analysis, or pragmatic considerations. It does not expound a new view of the Constitution or attempt to rediscover forgotten truths; rather, it merely invokes the cultural power of our shared devotion to a national icon as support for a predetermined political agenda. The life of our Republic is dependent on a thriving national dialogue. It is vital for us to continue to have meaningful debates about the nature, scope, and substance of our Constitution. In these discussions, there is ample room for all political viewpoints, be they liberal, conservative, moderate, etc. In fact, all are necessary if we are to thrive as one nation. But as James Madison, often called the "Father of the Constitution," observed, "[t]he citizens of the United States are responsible for the greatest trust ever confided to a political society." As a self-governing nation, our duty to exercise that trust responsibly is profound indeed. Casually treating our Constitution as a mere tool for the sake of expediency or personal political gain derogates the obligation that we bear, as a society and as a country, to build a better Union.
No comments:
Post a Comment