I'm going to pick on President Obama for a minute. But that's only because he is 1) the most powerful elected official in our country, and 2) he or his people makes claims that he is a constitutional scholar. It is not because he is... GASP!... a black man. Nor is it because he is... GASP!... a Democrat. It is because of his attitude about our U.S. Constitution.
About 10 years ago Mr. Obama was on an NPR program in Chicago for an interview. In that interview he said the following:
"And to the extent as radical I think as people tried to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn't that radical. It didn't break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution, at least as it's been interpreted. The Warren Court interpreted it in the same way that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. It says what the states can't do to you. It says what the federal government can't do to you, but it doesn't say what the federal government or the state government must do on your behalf."
That probably sounds familiar because it was replayed during the most recent Presidential campaign. It reflects an unfortunate and somewhat dangerous attitude about one of our four founding documents. I am focusing on the phrase "negative liberties." It is an odd way to characterize our Constitution. The Constitution was found necessary when our country discovered it was not able to function with the somewhat looser organization in place after the Revolutionary Way. The very reason we had our Constitutional Convention is that we needed a guiding document that enabled the government to work. Based on previous experience in the world, it was felt that the Constitution would be good for only about 150 years or so. We have now been using the document for 221 years and it is still being studied and copied in other countries.
The Constitution was not intended to define how every citizen could get assistance from the government. Therefore it was not intended to say what the government must do on your behalf. That does not mean it is a charter of negative liberties.
The Constitution defines how government is structured. It says how representatives are elected. It says how long officials serve. It uses the word "shall" over and over, but usually in the positive direction. You find the phrase "shall not" much less often.
If I open my pocket Constitution to the page in the middle, where it wants to fall because of the staples holding it together, I see phrases that begin:
New States may be...
The Congress shall have power...
The United States shall guarantee...
The Congress... shall propose...
All debts... shall be valid...
The Constitution, and the Laws of the United States... shall be...
The Senators and Representatives... shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation to support...
Certainly there are negative implications along with any positive statement. Aren't most of our laws stated as negative liberties? A stop sign, which you must legally observe, is a positive implement in that I may safely pass through the intersection. But it is a negative implement if I do not wish to stop for the safety of others.
Perhaps Obama was referring to the Bill of Rights. Those are the first 10 amendments to the Constitution, and the very first one begins with the words, "Congress shall make no law...". That is a "negative liberty" toward the Congress, but the purpose is a positive liberty to all citizens. The Founders did not name this collection "The Bill of Limitations" but rather saw it as a collection of guarantees of our inherent rights. These rights are guaranteed to the people, not to the government. As the Declaration of Independence made clear, the rights do not come from the government, but rather are from our Creator.
Most of the posts in this blog are only necessary (in my mind) because of the lack of understanding of the Constitution, or perhaps even because of a lack of true faith and allegiance to the same. I usually focus on only one part of our First Amendment. But it is important that all citizens and all leaders understand the entire Constitution. On this page is a link where you can buy a pocket-sized copy of the Constitution for about a dollar and a half. It's a small investment to have such a document handy. Or you can easily find the entire text on the Internet for free.
Saturday, June 26, 2010
Why It Is Important to Know the Constitution
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment