Guess What I Read

The Constitution. A few days ago. And the Declaration of Independence. No light novels or like material. I guess that makes me a hopeless conservative, but for me it's simply an interest in our nation's history. In fact I've read about these documents as well.

They're very different instruments, and neither deals with the other. Of course the Declaration couldn't have referenced the Constitution since it hadn't yet been composed, but it didn't happen the other way either. In fact, the Constitution contradicts it in terms of equality and slavery. But they're really unrelated. The former simply justifies actions taken, while the other lays out the structure of our government and our laws. The Declaration of Independence deals with our international relations as well as the relationships between states and the national government. It's philosophical (actually it's the declaration of what had happened already so as to justify the establishment of relations with other nations) while the latter is pragmatic – a plan for running the newly established country. Still it's important to remember that they were written by the same founding generation and that they are the basis for our country and our actions today.

I'm not a lawyer and I'm not knowledgeable about interpretation of the Constitution or any case law that expands on its concepts, but it's hard to understand how we got to where we are based on what I read in the document. I'm sure it's all perfectly explainable, yet I'm baffled by some of what people – people who, I suspect, have never read it – consider their constitutional rights. And I'm similarly amazed at what those familiar with it have done in its name.

Let me specify a couple – and only a couple – of examples of what I mean. They're amendments.

Article I

Congress shall make no law respecting … the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. (emphasis added) – Does that include flag burning, rioting, and violence? Does it include harassing those with whom demonstrators disagree? The courts say it does.

Article XIV

1: … No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. Various amendments specify age (eighteen or above), previous involuntary servitude, and sex. The body of the Constitution prohibits religious tests for office. There is no mention of race, sexual preference, disability, or the like. Perhaps they're reasonable as prohibitions, but they're not listed.

There are many more examples of the “discovery” in the Constitution. “Rights” to privacy and abortion, nowhere mentioned in the framework that established our laws, have been identified by those who would find them. And while Article 1, Section 7, decrees that All bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives, somehow, presumably by additional legislation, that now has become all bills for disbursing revenue. Not that I oppose the system, but I'm bewildered by the fact that we're at a point where what it says is not what I thought it said.

Interpretation and further legislation seem to me to be the primary issues. They're the path to twenty-first century America. When it comes to Congress, and to the representatives we elect, I'm less bothered than otherwise, because those people are answerable to us, and they (their staffs actually) pay some attention to our wishes. We can vote them out of office in less than two years if we don't like what they are doing. And they're charged with the responsibility for making our laws.

Unfortunately the President is above us, even though we elected him, and the courts are free to impose their views irrespective of our wishes. And by their interpretations and social and political biases they establish the law. We have no recourse. Constitutional amendments are difficult, and a convention would lead to a crisis and mischief beyond our imagining. Still, we need a way for public opinion to be heard and considered by those who use their offices to promote their own social agendas. Jefferson, who is credited with writing the Declaration of Independence, believed that we should not be bound by the ideas of past generations and he thought that the laws we follow should be reviewed every twenty years or so.

Perhaps Jefferson's plan is impractical. Opening everything to change at one time can only lead to the possibility of massive and expensive reorganization, and lead to uncertainty as we move from one system to another, but it remains important for those with authority to know what we really want – not just the thoughts of a focus group. A system might be established using the internet (with public internet available to those who lack the capability at home) for citizens to list, by subject or keyword only, their areas of concern. Each time this is done (perhaps every other year) the top ten or so should be listed for public comment – again on the internet. Such comments should later be clarified by a formal questionnaire, with the opportunity to indicate specific concerns if they aren't already covered. Free-text, however, should be limited to avoid rants and to encourage focus on the real issues. I'm sure there are programs that could both arrange and count the comments for public officials to read and would filter out those with expletives or other undesirable content. None of the results would be binding, but publication of the public's vexations might encourage those with the power to do so to consider the views of “We the People.”

It is, after all, our Constitution.