A lot of people, including myself in the past, have argued about numerous topics with the assumption that the U.S. Constitution is somehow a perfect document. The Constitution says this, therefore…whatever. Now, I do think that the U.S. Constitution is the best political document ever written, but that doesn’t mean it’s perfect, and therefore I’m not so sure why people use it as an infallible authority. It’s kind of like people quoting the Bible to back up their points, in that they suppose the Bible to be infallible truth.
I used to be a Constitution originalist, ala Scalia, but I’ve recently realized (and I should’ve realized much sooner) that it’s not perfect and it’s not infallible, and so using the Constitution as a source without error is the same as using the bible as a source without error.
I agree the Constitution is an imperfect document, however, I think the principle here is one of legitimacy. The Constitution gives both a contex and a language with which to work in. This area was mostly set down by the original drafters but it has been modified (sometimes fairly radically) by Congress. So, it isn’t static in a way that should interfere with the running of good government, because if an aspect of it is not longer amenable to good government, it can (and has been) changed.
Essentially, the Constitution represents a contract and violating that contract (by either doing too much or too little) violates the authority upon which the legitimacy of the government rests. So, if we ignore the imperfect Constitution, we ignore the Rule of Law, which is a tricky thing, especially in a Republic where the tyranny of the majority is always looming in the background.
I’m sorry but the first thing that came to mind when I saw the thread title was the ‘Bobo/Citizen Kane’ episode of the Simpsons where Smithers is going through the numerous artifacts in Mr Burns’ cellar and comes across ‘a rare first draft of the constitution with the word “suckers” in it.’
Haha, I remember that episode too. Back when the Simpsons was good.
Drats- mine was one of those posts Ucci inadverantly deleted. Oh well.
From Ben Franklin’s speech, delivered before signing the Constitution.
It took them until the 13th amendment to abolish slavery, not so perfect eh! The constitution is merely a product of its time, how is it anymore perfect than, say, the Magna Carta?
It is all relative, in 300 years time it may well be seen as irrelevant, laughable or perhaps it might be sacroscant. Who knows.
Just because individualism is important now as it’s so closely enmeshed with capitalism, it doesn’t mean it’s an absolute right.
True, and it’s also worth noting and individual freedom can potentially extend far beyond the two basic choices capitalism offers - to buy or not buy something, to kill or not kill something.