Posts
As some of you may know, I subscribe to the Economist. While I am not always able to read each issue in full, I usually at least get through the briefings section. I like it because it helps me to keep up to date on what is happening outside of the United States. I don't feel so entirely insular and unaware. In addition to keeping me informed about the happenings outside of this nation, I appreciate much of the commentary on the United States, even when I disagree - it is nice to have an outside perspective.
Well, with the elections approaching on Tuesday, I've been thinking a lot about the Tea Party movement and the tendency for some people within our nation to worship the constitution. So, I was very pleased to read a recent article on constitution worship, which can be found here.
I recommend that you read the entire article, but here is one paragraph that really encapsulates how I feel:
"When history is turned into scripture and men into deities, truth is the victim. The framers were giants, visionaries and polymaths. But they were also aristocrats, creatures of their time fearful of what they considered the excessive democracy taking hold in the states in the 1780s. They did not believe that poor men, or any women, let alone slaves, should have the vote. Many of their decisions, such as giving every state two senators regardless of population, were the product not of Olympian sagacity but of grubby power-struggles and compromises—exactly the sort of backroom dealmaking, in fact, in which today’s Congress excels and which is now so much out of favour with the tea-partiers. "
There are many people who look upon our constitution as scripture, and it makes me cringe every time I hear it. Don't get me wrong, I love my country and the constitution is an incredible document, I think the founding fathers were visionaries and are rightly venerated. But they should not be worshiped, they were men, not demi-gods, with flaws and disagreements. The constitutional convention was an exercise in compromise. The resulting document is not tantamount to scripture, however inspired some of the founding fathers may have been scripture is the result of divine revelation, the constitution is the result of political negotiation and compromise.
Stephanie recommended that we read the constitution for our family home evening this week, which has only strengthened my resolve to speak out on this topic. Those who worship the constitution all too often speak of going back to the founding fathers, getting back to core constitutional principles, and stopping all this "progress" we've had. I like progress, and all too often those who revel in constitutional originalism fail to remember that the original constitution was a profoundly flawed document with certain provisions that directly lead to a civil war that nearly crushed this nation in its early years. They forget that those demi-gods of democracy we honor so much (Jefferson, Washington, Adams, Hamilton, etc.) were joined by Charles Pinckneys and Elbridge Gerrys. They forget that after that constitutional convention, the document was felt to be flawed enough that ten amendments were passed only four years after the original document was ratified. And they forget that after those ten amendments, there have been seventeen more.
Each of the seventeen amendments is a part of the constitution. It boggles my mind to hear people proclaim the constitution as inspired while they lament its downfall in one moment only to hear them declare that we should repeal the fourteenth and seventeenth amendments. While I think the seventeenth amendment was a mistake, I am not proclaiming that the constitution is some kind of scripture that we all have fallen away from - all twenty-seven amendments are part of that document, each amendment was passed in accordance with the constitutional provisions allowing them, and as such the entire document is one whole. You cannot claim it as inspired and then denounce the provisions you don't like, it's not a consistent ideology. And it makes me crazy. So, with that introduction I want to introduce you to the constitution in its entirety, its original flaws and how, thankfully, many of them have been overcome.
The three fifths clause: "Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons."
The original constitution never explicitly mentioned race, but in the fourth sentence after the preamble it separated human beings into separate classes (including free persons, indentured servants, Indians, and implicitly slaves) and only acknowledged slaves as 3/5 of a person.
Slave Importation: "The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person."
In order for the constitution to be ratified, the northern states had to agree that congress could not pass any laws against the importation of slaves until 1808. While the southern representatives claimed they too abhorred slavery and thought it would die out soon, they knew their home states would not accept the abolition of slavery. Slavery died out so soon that some war was fought over its expansion in the 1860s. Because this clause only operated until 1808 it is still a valid part of the constitution and has not been revoked by subsequent amendments like the other slavery clauses. In other words, reference to slavery is still part of the constitution.
The vice-presidency: "The Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no Vote, unless they be equally divided."
The original constitution created an office that John Adams, upon holding said office, called the most useless office ever invented by man. While precedent has been set over the years giving the Vice President more authority, constitutionally it is an almost pointless position other than to have a ready successor to the President and a tie-breaking vote in the Senate.
The Fugitive Slave clause: "No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, But shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due."
So often the more conservative part of our electorate proclaims "States' rights" that it makes me laugh to think how the constitution was a document established to limit state rights, to strengthen the federal government, and how in that document even the state sovereignty that was intended to remain was infringed by the slave power. States' rights? If we get back to the original constitution you can't decide who is free or slave within the boundaries of your own state.
1st Amendment - The establishment clause: "Congress shall make no law respecting and establishment of religion"
The first clause of the first amendment, separation of church and state. The tea party loves the constitution, we need to get back to our roots - and yet the very first thing amended was to make sure that church and state were separated. Despite Christine O'Donnell's claims, it's in the document, actually it's in the document twice. The third paragraph of the Article VI reads in part "no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."
cara menghilangkan kutil pada kelamin pria
5 years ago
