|
Townhall.com…
The Constitution,
Yes, But There's More, By Star Parker
Jan 9, 2011 - I salute the Republicans of the 112th Congress for their
initiative to restore the U.S. Constitution to its legitimate place of
prominence in our public discourse.
Reading it aloud at Congress’s opening session and requiring members to
cite Constitutional authority when introducing new legislation are
great ideas.
It will help highlight that the real debate is about the underlying
defining principles of our nation that the constitution exists to
protect.
Democrats mocking these gestures show their disdain for those
underlying principles. When Congressman Henry Waxman says “Whether it’s
constitutional or not is going to be whether the Supreme Court says it
is,” it’s like my saying that whether or not I steal from my neighbor
depends on my calculation of whether or not I’ll get caught.
The constitution is our operating manual defining the functions and
bounds of our federal government. It was meticulously designed by our
founders so that we would have government consistent with the values
and principles of our nation.
It’s in those values and principles where our “eternal truths” lie. Not
in the constitution constructed to secure them. If the drafters didn’t
see it this way, they wouldn’t have provided provisions to amend and
change it.
It’s in our increasingly tenuous sense of what the truths are that
precede the constitution, or the questioning by some if indeed there
are any eternal truths, where our problems lie.
The purpose of government, stated in the Declaration of Independence,
is to “secure” our “Rights”, including those of “Life, Liberty, and the
Pursuit of Happiness.”
But how can we understand and use our constitution if we can’t agree on
what “life” is or what “liberty” is?
Consider one of the most repugnant decisions to ever emerge from the
U.S. Supreme Court – the Dred Scott decision.
The decision relegated blacks to subhuman status and precluded the
possibility that they could be considered US citizens protected by the
constitution.
The issue was not whether the constitution was taken seriously. The
issue was how prevailing values dictated understanding of who people
and citizens are. And so, per our Supreme Court in 1857, a class of
human beings in our country was relegated to chattel.
The Roe v Wade decision in 1973, which gave open license to kill our
unborn children, stemmed not from indifference to the constitution, but
from how we choose to relate to and define what life is – or the extent
to which we even care.
Recently a federal judge in California overturned as unconstitutional
an initiative passed by California voters to define marriage as between
a man and a woman. Lawyers who supported the suit to overturn the
initiative included conservative and libertarian lawyers who would
claim to support our constitution as constructed by our founders. What
they don’t support is an understanding of the definition of marriage
being between a man and a woman as a pre-existing truth that the state
should be free to codify in its constitution.
Supposedly among the truths that our constitution secures is our right
to our private property.
But what can that possibly mean if the federal government can define
what health insurance is and force under law every American citizen to
buy it?
It is a strange understanding of “life” and “liberty” that will allow
this to occur. If government can dictate to this extent how I live and
what I do, I begin to feel like they own me. I start feeling like Dred
Scott must have felt.
So, yes, let’s put the spotlight back on our constitution. But let’s
not lose perspective that our understanding and interpretation of it
will be just as good as our agreement on and understanding and
appreciation of the underlying values it’s there to secure and protect.
|
|
|
|
