Constitution Day 2007

What is the most important date in American history? Most of us would swiftly answer the Fourth of July. But think about today, September 17th. On this date in 1787 the convention in Philadelphia completed work on one of the greatest acts of creative leadership of all time, "this Constitution of The United States." Their work rescued America from what Madison later described as "gloomy chaos" and set the world marching toward what we can now see as the Age of Democracy.

Yet there will be no parades today, no picnics or fireworks. Perhaps a library somewhere is sponsoring a talk. Constitution Day will pass largely unnoticed. It is not surprising. Americans have over the last 40 years drifted away from a connection to our Constitution, the document that invented the United States as we now understand it and helped America to become the longest enduring democracy in history (Athens lasted 170 years as a democracy).

We revere the framers. We gobble up books about them and love snippets of their wisdom. They have become our secular gods. Yet we have little sense of what it was they actually invented. We know that the Declaration of Independence proclaimed our liberty. But liberty alone, as it turned out, was not the answer to the question of how to create a successful nation. As the framers learned in the eleven years following 1776, liberty unleashed the ambitions, the self-interests of individuals, factions and states. Selfish behavior was so rampant that the army nearly starved in the field of battle. Farmers took up arms. States threatened border war with other states. The country, if it even was a country, was falling apart. This was the "gloomy chaos" Madison confronted when he entered Philadelphia.

He and his fellow delegates saved America by recognizing that the pursuit of self-interest, which lay behind all the chaos, was fundamental to human nature. Before 1787 self-interest was something that had to be transcended to preserve Democracy. But the Constitution turned "vice into a virtue," harnessing ambition and channeling it into a system of representative government that pit interest against interest to find the greater good. Power was separated and balanced. The system was driven by "conflict within consensus" as historian Michael Kammen summed it up. There had never been a government like it before. This was their great invention: a government that let people be free by recognizing what people were really like.

The power of their invention is inarguable. Out of that sweltering hall in Philadelphia, out of that crisis of the early American nation, emerged a blueprint for government that was designed to let the people govern themselves despite their imperfections. It did not count on people to be selfless or bigger than themselves. "If men were angels, no government would be necessary,' wrote Madison. This new idea for government presumed people would pursue their own interests. Indeed it counted on them to do just that.

And it created paths for others to disagree, and resist them, or argue for something different. Their invention was a government designed to channel these struggles. To impede change until enough people supported it. To force people to the middle To encourage compromise. To spread power around so, in Hamilton's succinct vision, the few could not oppress the many and the many could not oppress the few. A lot could get done if people worked together in this system. But, if they fought each other, it could all grind to a halt.

In other words what they sent out from Philadelphia 220 years ago today was not just a piece of parchment. They created a new set of ideas about government and democracy. They had no idea how effective those ideas would be

The American "experiment" has worked better and lasted longer than any alternative.

But we do not recall all this for a history lesson. Because today, despite all our success, many Americans are feeling deeply frustrated and disillusioned with the functioning of their country. "Our conviction about American greatness and purpose is not as strong today," William J Bennett writes on the very first page of his History of The Untied States.

We are searching for a renewal.

The Constitution itself is a good place to start this day. It is after all what makes us Americans. We are not a country defined, in the words of journalist Ray Suarez, "by blood, or clan, or land origins, or religious belief." Rather, we are held together by the strength of our shared beliefs in our Constitution and its principles -- such as a respect for process, a willingness to compromise, a tolerance for dissent. We call this our Constitutional Conscience

But we have been drifting away from these principles and our modern politics has become brittle, confrontational and uncompromising. Our common bond has been unraveling. Recent experience reminds us that we make mistakes as a country when we move away from how our system was built to work. When people say now they wish The Congress and the media had done more to question the march to war in Iraq they are saying, too, that they wish the leaders of congress and the press had done more to assert their authority, and fulfill their responsibilities, under The Constitution. Even many proponents of the war concede now that the checks and balances did not work well. We believe that is precisely because of a weakening of our sense of our Constitutional roles, our constitutional conscience. Voters do not reward elected officials for executing their constitutional responsibility so it is little wonder that most elected officials don't pay much heed to those responsibilities. "People revere the constitution yet know so little about," Senator Robert Byrd said, "and that goes for some of my fellow senators."

Ronald Reagan, one of our most important 20th century presidents saw this problem coming as he left office. He warned of what he saw as a growing failure to appreciate our own history. Ultimately, he said, this would eradicate "the American memory" and threaten the American spirit. Some years later, Derek Bok the former president of Harvard worried that no one any longer bothers to prepare people to be citizens. Civics has nearly vanished from our curriculums, squeezed out in many cases by the understandable drive to teach science and math. We do that to assure our competitiveness in the world economy. But we should be just as concerned about our moral authority in the world. Moral authority comes from the strength of our principles. We are the inheritors of one of the greatest statements of democratic principles ever written. One piece of rehabilitating our moral authority in the world and our confidence in our selves is to reconnect with our own statement of best principles, "this Constitution of the United States." Franklin Roosevelt, our other great 20th Century president, said we should read The Constitution "again and again" like the bible. Or maybe we should all go to that Library talk.

Comments

[johnxxx]

This is one of the best articles on our Constitution I have ever read.It raises a most important question. How can we get our schools,at every level,to sufficiently impress this in every students mind? Do we suggest it? Do we beg for it? Do we demand they do their duty to protect our Republic? Which is the best approach? johnxxx

[rst2536]

LEVIATHAN REDUX

If politics concerns authority,
Then authors of the parlous sort
Won’t care as much for a majority
As long as they control the Court.
The Court controls the Constitution
And so can oversee dilution
Of all our democratic rights
Until we’re in the worst of plights-
When citizens, out of commission,
Must go along; do what they’re told,
As if they’re prisoners just paroled.
Hence, Bush and Cheney’s imposition
Of terrorism’s 911
So they can build Leviathan.

[OutsideLookingIn]

It's certainly true that the Constitution of the United States was an extraordinary, seminal, bringing together of the most modern and advanced thinking - in the Eighteenth Century. Its impact on the world was everything the author claimed and I would suggest that only the establishment of the Christian Church has had the same impact on society in the whole of the last 2,000 years.

Yet the US has stood almost still in the last 230 years while thinking has moved on from the 18th Century models it has petrified in its single-minded fixation on it. Most other countries have now evolved far more flexible, inclusive and responsive forms of Government which avoid and would abhor any single person holding in his hands the kinds of (kingly) power still claimed by the US President, while the separation of Church and State is so firmly entrenched that any mixing of the two is inconceivable. Indeed, when most other nations sharing the social heritage of the US have moved on to voting systems based on proportional representation the US is still stuck with its two-party duality and its "if you're not for us you're against us' thinking.

When most other advanced western countries have already had, or even have, women leaders, the ripples of shock and horror in the US at the possibility of a woman President, seems all too redolent of that 18th Century thinking.

Constitutional reform in the US is now long overdue.

[oldpeter]

It will be the shame of this generation if we allow this to be the last Constitution Day. If we do not stop the Iran war from happening, then with it

[Robster]

Good idea, but remember, it's the whole constitution and all the amendments (including the embarrassing 2nd) or it's meaningless what you say.

[kfdan]

I have no doubt that Obama can be President but I do doubt that he can buck the corrupt and war driven system that has been the leading light in America for over the last 30 years! It's an Empire and only those who can restore the Constitution with all the processes in place to make government bodies accountable for their actions and force public disclosure of it's conduct will be able to ride this beast!
Can Obama do that. I seriously don't think he's thought deeply enough to know his position in history and what must be done to avert the tragedy about to happen!

[definitelyNOTmisterRIGHT]

i'm not sure i understand what you are trying to say. what is his position in history and what is about to happen? please explain.

[Kansas Evans]

Yes, please explain.

[HypocrisyAlarm]

My second point would be getting institutions out of politics. ONLY individuals (no PACs, no unions, no businesses) would be allowed to contribute and ONLY to candidates who will appear on the ballot in their voting precinct. Better yet, scrap donations in favor of limited public funding and requiring all media outlets to grant time for campaigning on an equal basis to all candidates. Perhaps we could accomplish divorcing news reporting from these outlets entirely from the corporate structure at the same time. Outlets would set certain time slots aside each day. Outlets would pay a service fee for using the public's airwaves and cables to a pool to finance not-for-profit, independent news organizations who would use the reserved time slots for broadcast.

If nothing else, officials who received funding from a party or parties interested in particular legislation should be required to recuse themselves from all involvement (including voting) on said legislation. For instance, if Senator A accepts funds from oil companies, (s)he may NEITHER sit on the Energy Committee NOR vote on energy legislation.

Speaking of who's on the ballot in one's precinct leads to a third point. Perhaps geographic­ally-based representation needs modification. I would favor more proportional government, rather than winner-takes-all, with refinements. I see community government based geographically, i.e. one votes in one's district for one representative of THAT geographic locale. For state government, everyone in the state would choose from ONE list of candidates with the top "X" (number of reps needed) vote-getters being elected. Ditto for national officeholders. This system would help reduce the "bringing home the bacon" of "porkbarrel politics", help eliminate the gerrymandering of political districts, and encourage support of "the common good" over electoral feudalism.

I have more ideas about what, IMHO, needs to change, but I don't want to wear your eyes out.

(end part II)

[definitelyNOTmisterRIGHT]

HypocrisyAlarm , don't worry about our eyes. when something this thought provoking and intelligent is written, it is hard to peel the eyes away (in a good way)! thank you and keep up the good work!

[KenTao]

Excellent comment! I wish more US citizens were as clear-headed. To me what you are calling for here is a no-brainer. Unfortunately, a vast percent of our citizenry (I would cite those who voted for the WPE TWICE!) seem to possess no brains.

And, hey, you might want to consider moving back here to help up straighten out this mess.

Earthlings Unite!

[deminmo]

Such good ideas, why aren't you here and making the changes you see necessary? One voice starts a choir.

[guajiro]

BULLY!!

[HypocrisyAlarm]

Having spent a number of years considering the reasons that living in the US became so onerous that I chose to live elsewhere, I agree with mommadona that a Constitutional Convention is in order.

One reason is the near religious fervor "business" generates. The cutthroat practices of the business world have now "trickled down" (I can trace this to the Reagan times) into the society at large. I thought when I left the US particularly about what I saw as a breakdown the "social contract". I noticed among the people I came into contact with a large increase in the number who were willing to step on others, cheat, lie, do just about anything to get ahead or get what they wanted. One simply cannot have a cohesive society in a dog-eat-dog environment, only a reversion to feudalism. The US is headed down the path to modernday feudalism. Peoples' lives are bound to their employment, and the "captains of industry" are lords over the livelihoods and healthcare of their employees. That's a huge power. However, "noblesse oblige" is a foreign concept to many of these wealthy nouveau kings, and their prevailing attitude seems to be "I have to have these workers, but I gotta get 'em as cheap as possible, and get rid of them as quickly as possible when I don't need them anymore before their costs start cutting into my salary and bonuses".

Thus, my first point in revamping the Constitution is restoring a balance between the people and business in two ways: remove the protections granted to business that puts a business as an entity on a par with a person, and make employees the first ranking liablity to corporations. If a corporation declares bankruptcy, the employees would then have FIRST call on assets to receive what the corporation promised them, rather than somewhere near last.

(end part I)

[guajiro]

Hear, Hear!!!

[Spookcatcher]

You started out great, and almost had me, until you just had to stick the Reagan BS in there! Today is the Day of the Year we should reflect on, especially over Independance Day, because it seems our Rich Elitists Oligarchs don't recognize the fact that we not only Declared Our Independence from the Crown of England, but having defeated them in several instances, We Won the Battle of Britain. Yet we still get sucked into Wars and Imperialism with them every time. Our own MSM, and alomost all of the PBS broadcasting hours, is being taken over by their reporting and worldview programing, and NPR is owned by them! Disgusting! We are unabashedly flying backwards to Tyranny, via the Fascist Bush Administrations destruction of our U.S. Constitution!

[guajiro]

I must highly recommend Thom Hartmann's book, "Unequal Protection". It spells out exactly how the Oligarchs, via corporations, have stolen the constitution, or annexed it to where they use the Constitutions awesome powers against us, the people.

[zaft]

I believe what our "founding fathers" had in mind when they included "Separation of Church and State" was the following: Their main objective was that there would not be a designated denomination as part of the country. The very reason the first immigrants came here from England was due to the persecution of those who refused to follow or join the Church of England. Then there were other countries like France whose State Religion was Catholicism, Germany's Lutherism. When setting up the new government, they wanted to make certain that no Christian denomination held precedence. Granted, due to the fact that the majority of settlers were Western Europeans who were predominantly Christian, the basic one nation under God relayed more to Christian tradition. (Holidays, etc,) On the other hand it did recognize and gave citizens the right to worship or not (atheists) without fear of alienation or abuse.

[definitelyNOTmisterRIGHT]

that is absolutely correct!

[Doofus]

Except that the 'first immigrants' from England
established Virginia & they were soon much more
interested in producing tobacco than anything else.
The 'Pilgrims' came later to Massachusetts, from
England by way of Holland, and they persecuted
everyone not of their faith, atheists included.
The F.F.'s learned as much from these experiences
as any others, I'm sure.

[mrcontinental]

But sadly everyone has forgotten this. Religion is about control and the right wants to control you.

[twasbrillignslithy]

But things change with education & Progress!

[kmccaskill]

Does Experience Matter? (Clinton and JFK didn't think so)

This Video Is Showing That Obama can be president because two fmr presidents were
where he is right now, history proves experience makes an either worse president( nixon, bush, vp dick cheney, defense sec.rumsfe­ld)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LBy3AKn_2Fk

[definitelyNOTmisterRIGHT]

kmccaskill, thank you for the link to this nice little video. this should be seen by all of the undecided voters. i am passing it along to everyone i know, as we all should. thanks again. keep up the good work!

[zizyphus]

September 17th, Constitution Day, should be a federally recognized holiday.

[definitelyNOTmisterRIGHT]

i wholeheartedly agree. a little more recognition for this anniversary is greatly needed. i am saddened by the number of citizens that have no clue as to what this great document means to our freedom.

[Kansas Evans]

Yeah, it'd be commercialized and students would be happy to miss school, but at least it'd force public education of the Constitution.

Lesson number 1: the Constitution is NOT based on the Ten Commandments. For example "All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives," and "Thou shalt not have another god before me," don't mean the same thing. I'm a Christian, and hearing the aforementioned blunder makes me sad.

[Seafoam]

General Pinochet reportedly said Democracies can be easily subverted.­...that is their weakness. And he certainly subverted one and its constitution. One method is to propagandize the population, dumb them down, through a controlled media. Politicized the judicial branch not to follow the constitution. The right wing in the USA has tried both. Congressional subpoenas go unanswered, wars are declared without following the constituion, etc. Welcome to dictatorships

[Kansas Evans]

Tried? I think it's more accurate to say they are well succeeding.

I agree with you. I think the saddest thing about what's happened to the media is that a new democratic president/Congress may change policy, but they can't change Fox!

[InsaneDisabled]

I'd like to see the Constitution replace the Bible in all swearing-in ceremonies. And no more 10 Commandments displays -- give us the Bill of Rights.

Americans need to realize that it's our unified secularity that makes us powerful -- not our fractured, contradictory belief systems.

[bythePeopleforthePeople]

I second that. Bushco could care less about anything but money and power. These people are not public servants they are whores for the super rich as the rest of our gvt has become. Our kids die so their kids can afford that third oceanfront home in the tropics.

[definitelyNOTmisterRIGHT]

AMEN to that!

[soulrebeljc]

I've always found the placing of the hand on the Bible a little ironic, since the Constitution (and therefore our government) is entirely secular. There is no mention in the Constitution of any office-taker requirement of a Biblical oath. Simply an oath to uphold the Constitution.

[mrcontinental]

George Washington was sworn in with a masonic bible.

Where do you think many of the concepts found in the constitution came from? I guess many people think they appeared out of thin air.

Freemasonry had a HUGE part in shaping our country.

[Advocate123]

1) The Constitution did anything but create a Democracy; it created a Constitutional Republic. There is a major difference. The fact that you mentioned that they intended to create a Democracy several times leads me to assume that this was not a slip. I wonder whether you are trying to mislead your audience or whether you really misread history.

2) Americans have over the last 40 years drifted away from a connection to our Constitution, because FDR attempted to pack the Court with a Klansman named Hugo Black. (I find it ironic that you quoted Robert Byrd.) Eventually, this spun into the Warren Court and the destruction of the Commerce Clause.

3) There was no collective ideology with the Founders, nor should there be today. The Constitution protects "individual" liberties and limits the Government by providing enumerated powers. The rant about selfishness in this Country's Founding has no basis anywhere in American History.

It is time we really revive the Constitution in Exile.

Advocate123
http://copiousdissent.blogspot.com

[guajiro]

Not sure I understand your point 1. Article 1, section 1 & 2 states: "All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.

Section. 2.

The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States"
Isn't voting a requisite of Democracy?

On your point 2: No American aged 50 or less was around when FDR or Black was alive, that's several million people. And few Americans understand the Commerce clause, hence, no way the above mentioned Americans would find the reasons you postulate as to why they've "drifted away from a connection to our Constitution".


On your point 3: That the articles in the Constitution are there is testimony to the fact that a sufficient or majority number agreed on the principles therein; what would constitute a quorum, what would need a simple majority vote, etc.

I believe we need a constitutional convention because our politicians no longer listen to any of us. I'm liberal, but I would be truly relieved if they passed laws that the right wanted, just to know that they listen to the people. But they only listen to CORPORATIOINS. The convention should address whether corporations are truly 'persons' in a democracy. Should they stand shoulder to shoulder with you and me in the arena of rights, responsibilities, and the unique powers and equal protections conferred upon humans by the founders and framers of the U.S. Constitution. Your statement that it's time to revive the Constitution in Exile implies you agree with the Constitution's early founders and Presidents; THAT THE SAFETY OF THE NEW REPUBLIC DEPENDED ON KEEPING CORPORATIONS ON A TIGHT LEASH....N­OT ABOLISHING THEM.