The House Republicans seem really, really excited about the Constitution. So excited that they need to set aside time for a special read-aloud session today. Sort of like reading Dr. Seuss to the kids – er, representatives – except with less rhyming. For all the complaining that the Republicans do about government waste, I can’t help but feel like this might just be, you know, a waste of time. If you haven’t already read the Constitution and know it pretty well, why are you in office?
Also, I feel a bit uncomfortable with the focus on America’s founding document by the Right, especially in light of Justice Scalia’s recent statements about the meaning of the 14th Amendment. It would seem that the trend in right-wing Constitutional interpretation is one that advocates for limited government and does little to protect minorities and women.
This perspective devalues the gains in rights that have been made over the centuries. It’s all well and good to say that rights can come from the ballot box or whatever, but by arguing that the Constitution cannot and does not affirm the equality of marginalized groups, it puts the idea of “inalienable rights” out the door. While the Declaration of Independence is a decidedly different document than the Constitution, the central concept of it – that there are rights and the government needs to affirm them or GTFO – is pretty important for the whole idea of America. By saying that things like equality are not guaranteed by the Constitution, one puts the whole notion of those things being rights on somewhat shakier ground. If the highest law of the land doesn’t guarantee equality, then how inalienable are our rights?
As a lady-type person, I’d really like to know that my essential equality is a central tenet of my nation. Legislating rights doesn’t always work out so great (I’m looking at you, marriage equality). Because of this, I’m not too excited about this Republican Constitution frenzy. I’m sure they’ll pose it as The Ultimate in Patriotism, but reducing the legitimacy of the rights of fifty percent of Americans doesn’t seem very patriotic to me. If that’s where they’re going with this, I’m none too pleased.
They can wave their tiny plastic American flags, or Constitutions, or whatever, but it doesn’t make their ideas right.
For argument's sake I am going to play the devil's advocate here and say that some of their fears can be warranted if you view them from their perspective. They want to know that the document that really brought about all the important changes in governance is working and being followed. They grew up reading the constitution in schools, and to them they may have seen the founding fathers as super heroes; To deny them their superhero fantasy would just be cruel no?
ReplyDeleteMoving on to Scalia. He has a few very good points. I agree with him in the view that we shouldn't just invent a meaning from a document so that it may say whatever suits us or whatever is not going to get us shot (AHEM bible?). That being said, my meaning is thus, the Constitution is not by any means perfect, but that is why we have the ability to amend it. Although the amendment process is far to long and drawn out to be realistic.
If we want to protect our citizens we need to have some base ideals set up so that we can amend the clauses in the constitution that either no longer make sense, never did or those that have fallen out due to a new era. So that is my plan: revision, but revision with a goal in mind.