Founding Father quote of the day

The dignity and stability of government in all its branches, the morals of the people, and every blessing of society depend so much upon an upright and skillful administration of justice, that the judicial power ought to be distinct from both the legislative and executive, and independent upon both, that so it may be a check upon both, and both should be checks upon that.

John Adams, Thoughts on Government, 1776

The Constitution and an old piece of paper

I had a conversation with a friend about the importance of our Constitution the other day. It didn't take long for him to begin to criticize our founding fathers for their character flaws and moral shortcomings. It wasn't that he thought the Constitution wasn't important, he simply reasoned that we shouldn't be so grounded in something so out of date and potentially incapable of solving today's problems. We should be willing to progress beyond the Constitution, he said. He then used his criticism of our founding fathers to scoff at the notion that we should revere the Constitution as something sacred.

Somewhere, a progressive liberal smiled.

Is the Constitution really just an old piece of paper, drafted for a different people in a different time? For those of us who do revere it, are we really being held back from some better future, one that has evolved past our founding father's vision? Should we view the Constitution as a timeless anchor, rooted in unchangeable principles or a breathable document, open to free interpretation? These are important questions. It is abundantly clear that our country's education system believes it has an answer to those questions. For a long time now our schools have worked very hard to destroy the reputation of our founding fathers. You see, the educators understand that if you can discredit the messenger, you can discredit the message. And if you can discredit the message, you can replace it with whatever one you want.

(But it's a one way street. Don't believe me? Just try to discredit Martin Luther King Jr's accomplishments by pointing out his moral shortcomings. See how far that gets you.)

The larger picture here, the one that extends beyond our schools, is progressivism. It is a plague that has destroyed more than one society over the course of human history, and it has been actively working towards our destruction for some time. Progressives understand that the biggest obstacle standing in the way of them achieving their radical transformation of this country is our Constitution. So, they have devised a very strategic plan. It involves a subtle attack, a slow whittling away of the reputation of everyone involved in its conception. It involves asking questions that attempt to out date the Constitution, seeking to prove its irrelevancy and inability to hold timeless value.

Here is a classic argument: The Constitution was drafted in a time where the problems of today's society would have been impossible to foresee, and therefore impossible to solve. We have to understand that the Constitution serves a purpose but we can't expect it to always be relevant. And here is another, very common one: The Constitution was designed to evolve and change over the years. A process for amendments was specifically included, and this proves that it should be seen as a breathable document, open for interpretation.

The problem is that both of these arguments (and others like them) fail to recognize that you can hold to a constant set of principles and yet apply them in very different ways depending on the situation. But progressives aren't interested in the core principles that create the foundation for the Constitution (you know, like personal liberty and limited government). That is why you will never see them try to amend the Constitution. Adding amendments could never serve their purposes because it would be admitting that the constitution is relevant and it would reaffirm the principles upon which the Constitution rests.

In the end, the Constitution isn't about dealing with events, it is about dealing with human nature. It isn't a handbook for solving problems, it is a guide that lays forth a specific set of principles. The scary thing is, we used to be fairly united as a country around those principles and disagreements would come only with their application, but now we are now fighting against an enemy that wants nothing to do with anything the Constitution stands for.

So returning to my friend, I say that the very fact that so many imperfect men with differing opinions were able to come together and draft a document that has withstood the test of time, become a standard by which all other countries' constitutions are compared to, and allowed thirteen poor colonies to become the greatest and most prosperous country in the planet means something. I think the fact that it has survived civil war, world war, the threat of nuclear destruction and the ongoing threat of terrorism means something. I think the fact that it has survived the industrial revolution, the high tech revolution, and multiple civil movements that have redefined our society means something. I think the fact that is has survived all of this and still stands strong is a pretty good indicator that founding fathers had a little outside help and perhaps a wider vision than we realize. To presume that we somehow know better is naive and arrogant. The Constitution is not just an old piece of paper, it is the very secret to our success. To revere it as anything less than sacred, and the principles for which it stands as anything less than constant and immovable, would be to simply pave the path to our own destruction.

Founding Father quote of the day

I join cordially in admiring and revering the Constitution of the United States, the result of the collected wisdom of our country. That wisdom has committed to us the important task of proving by example that a government, if organized in all its parts on the Representative principle unadulterated by the infusion of spurious elements, if founded, not in the fears & follies of man, but on his reason, on his sense of right, on the predominance of the social over his dissocial passions, may be so free as to restrain him in no moral right, and so firm as to protect him from every moral wrong.

Thomas Jefferson, letter to Amos Marsh, November 20, 1801