Whatever Happened To … ?

There was a presidential election last November. No one got a majority of the votes. It happens when there are more than two reasonably popular (or unpopular) candidates. What results in such an election is that one of those running has a plurality – more votes than anyone else, but not a majority. And that person is usually chosen President.

But not always. And that isn't what transpired in this election. The system we use puts the final decision in the hands of an “electoral college,” a construct that lets a majority of voters in each state register votes for the president, which are cast almost always unanimously by the electors who proffer the state's votes. That prevents a few states with large population from deciding a result that may be detrimental to the majority of the states though they lack a majority of voters. It's a constitutional provision.

And whenever it occurs there's a demand that the Constitution be changed and that popular vote be the deciding factor. That's what just happened this time. (Although attention to the problem disappeared when other things appeared in the news. Whatever happened to all the rage that initially surrounded the issue?)

Changing the subject a bit, the second amendment to the Constitution provides for arming of “the people.” There are many, myself included, who believe the amendment is too broad – perhaps even unwise in our times – but it's part of our Constitution, our laws, and we're obliged to accept it.

Yet whenever there's a violent incident involving a firearm there is immediate outrage and protest regarding the amendment. However the situation is usually forgotten quickly by most of our citizens as other news supersedes it. And those who continue opposing firearms wonder whatever happened to the anger. Our attention span is limited.

That's the way it is with most issues today. The world's changes and the news in general come in such great volumes and variety that we get excited only for the moment and then forget our indignation and move on to the next issue. Most problems are not solved. Of course if new legislation aids a particular lobby, or improves the image of some politician it has a good chance of implementation – if the opposition isn't sufficiently significant.

But there's another way that change takes place. Even if we don't change the laws we can alter our understanding of what they mean. The courts do it all the time. Thus, for example, although the courts acknowledge and affirm the Second Amendment – they're sworn to uphold the Constitution – they're quick to permit limitations of the “right” as legislated by individual localities. Hence there are requirements for registration of the weapons, requirements for training of those permitted to own them, safety rules, and a plethora of other regulations that control use. Proponents of such restrictions demand further limitations – at least that's what they encourage – but their real goal is elimination of the amendment. And perhaps their goal is worthwhile.

The use of interpretation is time honored. It occurs in regard to religious dicta and literary works, in addition to legal ordinances, and the idea has much merit. Not only does it allow for the filling in of lacunae which were intended by their authors as foci of thought, but it allows advocates of change corresponding to modern conditions.

But there are many who believe that the courts “interpret” laws to coincide with their own biases or those of the “squeaky wheels.” Not always, but enough of the time. Hence there are new definitions of privacy (a concept not mentioned in the Constitution) to include an array of sexual practices, decisions about health, and others issues involving various “isms.” There are other “interpretations” as well. Though I favor some of them, I'm not certain that the writers of the Constitution and its amendments would approve. “Whatever.” they would wonder, “happened to the rule of law? We gave them a mechanism to change the Constitution, but they have chosen to protest and 'interpret' their way around those provisions they don't like.”

I agree. Much of what currently favors alternatives to the document as written are based on whim, bias, and fashion. That doesn't mean they are wrong, though some of the views are clearly out of touch with the views of a majority of Americans. But many assert that we're as smart as the Founding Fathers and we're attuned to recent societal changes. What we want makes sense.

That view the Constitution's authors would surely support. And they would reiterate a challenge to rewrite or add to the Constitution on which our democracy is based. The process is difficult, but there is a process. Not just loud voices.

Whatever happened to process and order?