First, a note to regular readers of Wandering Rocks: I feel badly for writing so infrequently this semester. I am teaching two brand new, from-the-ground-up courses, each of them taxing in their own ways: Freedom of Expression (HON 251), a new honors course on the Oxford-Cambridge instructional model, and Visual Rhetoric (COM 300), a new core curriculum course that has required a great deal of reading. I am also teaching Media Law (COM 416), which also is labor-intensive, and, for UNC Chapel Hill, Writing for Digital Media (JoMC 711), an online course for graduate and professional students. These plus a busy travel schedule has yielded precious little time to write for this space. (Travel actually helps a bit. I’m in a hotel room now!)
To the headline: getting a U.S. Constitution we deserve. Whether it is living or, as Justice Antonin Scalia prefers, “enduring,” the Constitution has to be interpreted anew for each and every new generation. An article not yet published by the New York Times (it will come out in this Sunday’s Times Magazine), by Noah Feldman, argues that every generation gets a Constitution, or, in reality, an interpretation of the Constitution, that it deserves. An excerpt from the article:
“Every generation gets the Constitution that it deserves. As the central preoccupations of an era make their way into the legal system, the Supreme Court eventually weighs in, and nine lawyers in robes become oracles of our national identity. The 1930s had the Great Depression and the Supreme Court’s ’switch in time’ from mandating a laissez-faire economy to allowing New Deal regulation. The 1950s had the rise of the civil rights movement and Brown v. Board of Education. The 1970s had the struggle for personal autonomy and Roe v. Wade. Over the last two centuries, the court’s decisions, ranging from the dreadful to the inspiring, have always reflected and shaped who ‘we the people’ think we are.”
The Court’s next term begins Monday, Oct. 6. Before that date (let’s say Sunday night), I would like you to consider what kind of Constitution this post-9/11 generation deserves. In other words, what is or are the defining constitutional issue(s) or question(s) for this generation? I also recommend reading the article, which, among many other things, describes and discusses two views of the U.S. Constitution, one that sees it as an inward-looking document, one most if not exclusively concerned with the people of the United States, that people’s security, rights and interests, and “a more perfect ‘domestic’ order.” The counter view is that the founding document holds that rights similar to those it confers on Americans should protect all people everywhere, or a vision of freedom that should apply universally. Let’s see based on your answers to this post’s question which of these two views you hold and, therefore, what kinds of justices our President should be appointing.
September 28, 2008 at 3:30 pm |
The Supreme Court, obviously enough, has never been given the power to determine American’s foreign relations. However, they do have the authority to determine if those foreign relations involve unConstitutional activity, and forbid those sections that violate the Constitution. Their power is purely negative; they may only forbid particular parts, not direct in any way.
The idea of an “enduring” Constitution would only be rational if the Constitution had never been amended. However, we may no longer talk only about the intent of the Framers, since the 14th Amendment, to give an example, was not written by the original Framers, though it is just as much a part of the Constitution. As the Constitution gained new Amendments, the “will of the Framers” became less and less relevant. The Constitution is a living document, for the simple reason that it has been amended. Whatever Justice Scalia might say, the Constitution is not a document set in stone since the moment it was accepted; it is a document which has been repeatedly amended, frequently in ways that at least some of the Framers would not have liked.
In an ideal world, there would be certain universal rights. We don’t live in an ideal world. The Constitution is the supreme law of the United States of America. It is not the supreme law of the world. Some sections, particularly those derived from a belief in “natural rights”, should be universally existent. Most of the rest is specific to the United States. I see no more virtue in our three branches of government than in a Parliamentary system.
The defining questions of the coming era will be the extent of a right to privacy, the extent to which journalists are protected, and the legality of abortion. Privacy has flared up quite recently as an issue with the post-9/11 atmosphere of paranoia and reverence for “national security”, though it now appears that many aspects of expanded government power are being rolled back to the way they were before 9/11. The Supreme Court has the power to either continue that rollback or to allow the executive and legislative branches to control the matter. The protection of a journalist’s right to their sources is another issue they must address; this will be particularly painful, as the need for a free press conflicts with the absolute right of a defendent to see the evidence against him. There will be no easy solution to this problem. The third issue, abortion, is one that has been continually disputed since Roe v. Wade. If the Court does not reverse Roe v. Wade, then the nonstop dispute over the times when abortion is legal will continue. If the Court does reverse Roe v. Wade, the legislature and the states will immediately take up the debate, trying to make abortion illegal or legal in every state they can, or to pass federal laws to protect or forbid it.
In my opinion, the President should not appoint Justices like Scalia, simply because they refuse to admit that the Constitution has changed, as it was amended afterwards. He should appoint “living document” theorists, because the Constitution is no longer as it was when the Framers wrote it. Justices who wish to turn their backs on the protections the Constitution makes for individual rights, especially those established by incorporation, should have no place on the Supreme Court. We do not live in the 1700s, and the Constitution has been repeatedly amended. Any Justice who cannot admit that does not need to be on the Court.
September 28, 2008 at 5:14 pm |
I agree with Dylan on several points. First of all, the Constitution is first and foremost the supreme law of the United States. Yes, America was founded with the ideals of certain inalienable rights that should be granted to every human being, but the legal scope of the document falls solely upon the country for which it was written. As such, the legal ideals delineated within it apply only to this country. It is not our place as a nation to “bully” the leaders of other countries into treating their citizens more humanely or granting them greater rights. Yes, this might be the ideal solution to many countries’ problems, but our Constitution should not be considered a document that gives us the authority with which to do so.
Secondly, I agree with Dylan’s assessment of the defining issues of our generation. Privacy laws are becoming increasingly important with the advent of technology that connects billions of people around the world twenty-four hours a day. While this technology is undoubtedly positive in several aspects, the question of exactly what kind of information is considered in the public domain is a burden that will likely be addressed by the justices again and again in the decades to come. Abortion has risen to to the political forefront with a vengence in recent years, becoming one of the hot button issues for many in this nation. I agree that the Supreme Court will likely be forced to revisit (if not overturn) Roe v. Wade some time in the reletively near future simply because the debate cannot go on forever. Eventually the Supreme Court will get a case that will force it to make a decision one way or the other.
I also agree that the question of a journalist’s rights regarding the protection of the anonymity of his or her sources will likely be a very important issue for our generation, but if I had to choose a third issue that will define us, I’d have to say it would be the question of copyright laws. This question has only continued to crop up due to the technological advances mentioned earlier, and it will only continue to be a problem in the future. Technology simply progresses too quickly for the legal system to make timely rulings on the legality of certain forms of expression. By the time the court has ruled on an issue like sampling, for instance, another group of people will have created some other form of expressing themselves that will require a lengthy legal process. The Court can choose to continue playing this endless game of cat and mouse, or seek out other kinds of legislation (ie blanket licensing) that will help put definite parameters on an ever-growing problem.
September 28, 2008 at 8:25 pm |
I agree with Dylan and Taylor that the right to privacy is a big issue for this generation, and will continue to be so with new generations of technology, as Taylor mentioned. Legislation like the Patriot Act and issues like the wiretapping incident a few years ago are testament to that.
Another issue is torture. It’s been one of controversy as of late, throughout the past presidential administration, with the incident at Abu Ghraib and the controversy over the goings-ons in Guantanamo Bay. With this issue, due process of law will be related in some form or fashion.
I also agree that the Supreme Court will probably make another decision regarding abortion sometime in the near future, and I also think that environmental concerns will continue to come up.
September 28, 2008 at 11:55 pm |
I agree that abortion, torture, and environmental debates will become major legal questions in the near future. I also agree with Dylan that the court’s power in respect to foreign relations is purely negative. I must disagree with his comment about the idea of an enduring constitution, though. I don’t think that an enduring constitution is necessarily “set in stone.” I do believe that from that perspective, it is seen that the constitution is a statement of what its country stands for, and that if that statement can change at the drop of a hat, then the country will be less stable and the unpredictability of its law will be harder for its citizens to obey. The constitution could be seen as a standard by which to judge the changing times so that desensitization will be less likely to occur. If that standard becomes no longer acceptable, it can be amended without making it any less useful as such.
I also agree with Taylor in that our constitution contains certain rights that should be available to everyone, American or not, but that that does not give us the right to force other governments to incorporate them in their legal systems. On the other hand, I think that any person who is acting under the authority of someone in the U.S. (mainly military personnel) in another country should be under the same legal restrictions as if he or she was within our borders. How people representing our country act should not be affected by their geographic location.
However, if one issue is to be defining, it will be the task of updating current legal policies to developing technology in respect to privacy and “the question of exactly what kind of information is considered public domain”. I realize that that’s not technically one issue, but I think it’s close enough to be defining. In the strictly on-line realm, questions like whether bloggers can be considered journalists and what kinds of restrictions need to be placed on companies such as Google and Facebook need to be addressed. There are also issues to be addressed in physical public areas. The government may soon be able to “dust” areas with common items like pencil erasers that actually contain microphones. While this may prove highly useful for military uses and is yet unable to penetrate buildings, if used inappropriately, it could have a “big brother” effect. Warrants must be obtained to wiretap individual’s conversations. Will “blanket warrants” become possible? Computer programs can filter out sensitive words in e-mails; would voice recognition technology then filter those words in millions of previously private conversations that the “smart dust” would be recording? How will the removal of the human element from one stage of the law enforcement process affect our lives? I’m not sure how I would deal with these issues just because of the vastness of people and information that will have to be considered, but someone is going to have to.
I’m sorry if that sounded pretentious, that’s just the way I write.
October 3, 2008 at 2:59 am |
We aren’t the same people as those who were alive in when the Constitution was originally written. We aren’t the same country. Sure, we may occupy the same space, but that doesn’t really mean much. We’ve advanced so much both socially and scientifically. The founding fathers really couldn’t have imagined a country where they would have issues like stem cell research, abortion, immigration issues (to the extent that we’re talking about) and gay marriage driving a rift between people on both sides of the aisle, so for that reason I see the Constitution as living. As a society grows and changes, so should the rules that it’s governed by. Everything changes and the majority rules and progress is more or less waiting for the older generation to die off or retire so that the younger generation can take over. That sounds pretty cruel, but I think it’s true. We can’t have progress when the people in charge, as a generalization, can’t comprehend the thoughts and feelings of the current generation, whatever that generation may be at any given time. I’ll probably be part of the older, out-of-touch generation one day! If we follow the Constitution without reinterpreting it, then we’re really between a rock and a hard place because the situations of today really can’t be interpreted by the Constitution unless you treat it as a living, evolving document. If you don’t evolve, you die out. Our constitution can’t die, so it must evolve and be interpreted with each passing generation.
I really feel like the controversial issues of today are the trim on a building. We’ve already taken care of the foundation (the Constitution), the renovation (the amendments) and now we’re tying up loose ends with issues that seem pretty arbitrary to other issues such as slavery, the right to vote and segregation. I don’t believe Roe V. Wade will ever be overturned. It’s been around for far too long and it has far too much support. It’s also hard to argue that abortion should be illegal because, regardless of any why someone thinks it shouldn’t be legal, people will find other ways to terminate a pregnancy without it being carried out by a physician. That kills people, and it’s really no one’s concern whether or not a woman chooses to have a baby or not except her own. We already have an overpopulation problem, and the last thing we need is an unwanted kid. I believe that within our lifetime, gay marriage will become legal, but not without much debate… and arguing… and ignorant ranting. Slowly but surely people are waking up to the fact that homosexuals are just like everyone else; they should be able to do the same things. A civil union may supply the same rights as a marriage, but segregated water fountains both supplied water. That’s what not allowing gays to marry really is; segregation. Segregation is wrong, whether it’s because of your color, your gender, or who you fall in love with. Even if you think homosexuality is some terrible sin worthy of eternal hellfire, this is still America. Let people do what they want and mind your own business. Allowing research to be conducted on new strains of stem cells will happen fairly soon, I believe. The truth is that they may as well allow it, because other countries are doing it anyway and the end result will be the same. Whoever does or doesn’t do it, diseases will be cured regardless of whether or not America helps. The benefit of allowing scientist to conduct their research is that we can achieve the results faster if we don’t sit on the side lines, and the faster we develop cures the fewer people die. People also overlook something very important regarding the origin of stem cells. No one is suggesting that we “farm” fetuses to be harvested for their stem cells. The stem cells would come from fetuses that were going to be destroyed anyway, regardless of whether or not stem cell research was conducted. This is going to sound a little cold, but it’s just recycling. Immigration is a hot debate and is only going to become warmer as the world becomes more and more globalized and the lines between nations blur and people start to realize that everyone benefits from globalization and that those who do lose jobs can be re-trained or specialize. People only see the small picture and not the overall picture of macroeconomics. Jobs were lost during the industrial revolution, too. It still had to happen so that we may enjoy the standard of living that we have today. America is a nation founded by immigrants… it’s for immigrants. Immigrants want to move here to better their lives… is that not what America stands for?
October 5, 2008 at 11:28 am |
I think those who have already posted have astutely identified many of constitutional questions we will deal with in our generation. Privacy will be a major issue, I believe, since technological advancement and threats to homeland security are creating the possibility of intrusive means of protection, such as wire-tapping. I also think we will face several moral issues. Abortion will be an important one, and along with that will come questions about stem-cell research, cloning, etc. I believe gay marriage will become a huge issue again, as well. Along those lines, I don’t think we have seen the end of challenges to the definition of religious freedom. Issues like the Ten Commandments, prayer in schools, the presence of “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance will come up again – especially as our country continues to become more diversified.
In the face of these issues, I think the “inward” perspective the New York Times article discussed is important. The Constitution was written as the supreme law of OUR land, not necessarily of anyone else’s. I think America could have a greater impact on the world if it led by example rather than by force. As Taylor said, it is not really our place to push our ideals onto other countries. America can stand as an advocate and example of democracy and all the Constitution represents while exercising discretion in international relations. I believe the Constitution is constructed so that it first provides for the welfare of the people of this nation. As we face the constitutional questions of our day, I think that this principle should be kept in mind. Having a powerful global voice is important – perhaps even necessary – but how can we have that if our country is not strong itself?
October 5, 2008 at 1:53 pm |
I agree with Rebecca and Taylor in that America should be an example for other nations. Forcing others to believe in what we believe is unnecessary. In this post 9/11 generation, I think foreign diplomacy is one of our main legal question. How do we go about spreading direct democracy when we are a republic? Should we intervene in others national problems without taking into consideration the opinions of our allies and the UN? The question of nuclear weaponry will be a key issues in foreign policy and national security/
Others legal question that are crucial to this generation are abortion, homosexual unions, privacy, and environmental policies. Going of from what Rebecca mentions, I think abortion will bring up questions in stem-cell research. In addition, abortion and homosexual unions will bring up question in religious freedoms. Another problem we face in this generation is the economy with business monopolies i.e. walmart taking over small businesses. We need to deal with our domestic problems before taking on problems of other nations.
October 5, 2008 at 4:10 pm |
I believe that our country will need a period of isolationism soon when it comes to America’s personal views; we cant shape how the rest of the world works when our national debt does nothing but skyrocket. Thushy poses a wonderful question:”How do we go about spreading direct democracy when we are a republic?” The answer isn’t easy to come about but I like to think that we’ve been shaping the world using our monetary influence (even if in hypocrisy)… which is going to run out soon, leaving the euro and Great Britain to pick up the slack.
When our influence on the democratic development of the world rubs thin, so will our influence on what the world thinks about constitutional issues. In short, we don’t need to shape the world, we need to reshape or own little world.
October 5, 2008 at 6:12 pm |
I agree wholeheartedly with Taylor and Thushy in that we need to address our own problems before trying to fix the whole world. America is becoming less and less respected in the world. Before we can even lead as an example we need to solve our problems of national debt, our economic depression, and our energy crisis. Going along these lines is the issue of whether our Constitution should reach out past our borders. Our Constitution is the Constitution of the United States of America, not of the world. While a lot of the ideals laid out in it would be beneficial for the world to adopt, it is not our place to force them on others. Like i said before, we have our own issues to solve first and forcing our beliefs on others at this point would just be hypocritical.
The Supreme Court of the post 9/11 generation will face many issues and I think my classmates have already touched on the main ones. The immigration issue will have to be addressed soon. The number of illegal immigrants entering our country is escalating. We will need to strengthen immigration enforcement and encourage immigrants to come here legally. I don’t believe we really have an overpopulation issue as Clint says. Our problem is that we have a ton of illegal aliens here who are using our resources but not paying taxes. If we did have an issue the solution would be in solving our immigration problems, not in killing innocent babies through abortion.
Privacy is also an issue that has come up recently, especially since the passing of the Patriot Act. Our rights as Americans should not be jeopardized in times of threatened national security. These are the times where our country should become more united instead of separated and stressed. We should be able to have faith in our government and this is difficult if we are paranoid about our rights being violated or disappointed and outraged about how our government is handling the situation.
October 5, 2008 at 7:00 pm |
I think we need to mix the inward and outward approaches as both have good intentions behind them. Yes, America needs to globally impact the world and continue to better itself day by day. However, the Constitution was written for the AMERICAN people, and thus how can our laws apply to locations that have a completely different historical background and context? It makes sense for each nation to create their own laws but collaborate together on the ones that affect all humanity. Of course human rights should be respected, and the general welfare of mankind taken care of. However, if the United States partners with agencies that don’t have real power (look at what happened in Sierra Leone when the UN took over) or utilize it, then they will be forced to conform to laws that don’t benefit the general public. America is first of all responsible to its citizens, and that’s how the Founding Fathers created this nation to work. Unlike some, I really appreciate Justice Scalia’s approach to the Constitution. I don’t think the Constitution is so rigid that it can’t apply to the next generation, but instead the IDEALS that were placed there need to stand. If things need to be changed, then amend the Constitution. It’s necessary to know the context of a situation in order to properly understand its future.
Another reason why I think the government should blend the two approaches together is because of Tocqueville’s version of soft despotism. Soft despotism means the government will be a nanny state, and I foresee that happening if International Law gains prestige over our Supreme Court. Like I said earlier, we have a responsibility to govern our own affairs, and if we have to conform to the world’s ideals, then we have lost the independence Americans hold so dear.
A lot of issues have been mentioned, but the one that sticks out to me the most is that of national security, which in turn is connected to privacy laws, immigration, and technology. Now that we live in a day and time where technology is constantly changing and “upgrading” our world, we have to be vigilant against terroristic attacks. Before the technology age, acts of outright warfare were truly barbaric indeed. Now, however, they may be accomplished on a wider scale and will affect the outcome of people for generations to come. Will wiretapping be legalized and will we be able to check the DNA of individuals to see if they have an “aggressive” gene or not? I don’t know, but I do believe these issues will be raised and are ultimately connected to our own security. Thus, America must adopt an approach that effectively answers the questions its people are raising about their security.
October 5, 2008 at 7:21 pm |
The issues of homosexuality, abortion, and the withdrawal of religion are other topics our generation has to deal with. Unlike some, I do not agree with the topics mentioned above. I know some individuals support them, while others do not. However, the American government is trying to be so politically correct that it overlooks the opinion of individuals against those topics. Of course those who support those beliefs should not be targeted, but I do believe the individuals against it shouldn’t be penalized. One book that has influenced my decision is David Barton’s ORIGINAL INTENT, and it discussed the intentions of the Founders, how America went down the wrong path, and how we can climb out of our own pit. After all, George Washington stated, “‘The fundamental principle of our Constitution enjoins that the will of the majority shall prevail.” Nowadays, however, the majority is sometimes overlooked for the ostentatious, vocal minority and somehow receives more legislation. As a result, I believe this issue will rise to the front since America is a nation that values equality.
October 5, 2008 at 8:37 pm |
I agree with many of the issues that others have mentioned as probable decision to be made, like privacy and homosexual rights in particular.
One that has not been mentioned is the extent of power of the Executive Branch. It was originally intended to be mostly a figure-head and have little direct influence because the Framers wanted nothing to do with another King or an elected tyrant. Executive orders are probably the most controversial subject in this realm, as the President can make virtual laws that do not pass through the Congress. Of course, the Supreme Court could with its oversight power declare the “law” unconstitutional, but those rulings take time. Another topic here would probably be the War Powers Act. With wars imminent in the Middle East, threats from N. Korea and Venezuela almost daily, war, terror and fear are on the minds of Americans.
I believe the government’s role in peoples lives in terms of welfare will again be brought up. It was only meant to be a short-term thing, only to help people out during the Great Depression. Yet the poor learned to live off of the government hand-outs, and have never wanted to go back since. Who can blame them, except, of course, the working citizens who rightfully earn their money. Especially in this time of economic woe, the number of those on welfare is not going down, and the government will have to tax higher and/or borrow even more money from China to pay off their ever-increasing debt. This also relates to the same principle of the $700 mil. bail-out bill. What ever happened to a private, free market, laizzez-faire? The more that big government controls who gets money and how much of it, the close we are to letting them interfere in every aspect of life… Big Brother and Communism aren’t dead.
October 5, 2008 at 9:11 pm |
Like most other responses, I believe that privacy is a major issue but others such as environment, security, and the economy will always be present. With an entire generation growing up online, information about a person is a mere click away. The amount of details given can be alarming, putting people at risk. This slightly links to the issue of security, be it protection from predators to national security. America has seemed to go on a sort of lockdown ever since the attacks of 9/11 and will most likely stay that way until officials find it “safe”. With the whole Go Green movement and issues of global warming, environmental concerns weight heavy on the minds of Americans as their futures may be at stake. As everyone knows the local economic crisis is pretty hard-hitting, and if the situation plays out like similar ones in other countries in the past, is likely to last for years. Basically when the Constitution is being interpreted in regards to these aforementioned issues, the court needs to take care that decisions affect the larger public positively. The children of today will be tomorrow’s Supreme Court and if the members know what’s good for them, they will protect the freedoms that we have achieved thus far.
October 5, 2008 at 11:35 pm |
Although IDEALLY there would be some moral system of laws that treated all humans as brothers, this is not the purpose of American constitution. So I agree that as long as nationalism persists, the United States Constitution should and will (for the most part) apply strictly to those living within its borders.
The economy will require greater oversight, mainly in loaning and lending money as well as keeping tabs on big businesses.
Another important point that was brought up was the environment. I can only hope that soon the government will begin to take more action in the direction of environmental cooperativeness; if this problem is not addressed soon we will have to dig ourselves out of an even deeper hole (or landfill) than we are in currently.
Another, much more trivial point is political correctness: I fear that as diversity increases this plague will only spread. However, this will have implications on free speech. If we are too sensitive to emotionally “harmful” speech – or rather to those who take offense to it – we will unfortunately inhibit our country’s free speech.
October 6, 2008 at 12:47 am |
We all pretty much agree on what we think are the biggest issues. I like what Clint had to say about homosexuals gays have every right to have a civil union because a civil union is abound by law and the government can’t say that homosexuals can’t live together, but marriage which is truly a religious issue should not be a law by government. It is a choice of the churches. To the church a marriage’s purpose is procreation so government shouldn’t intervene.
The abortion issue will continue to be the most controversial for many years to come. If Roe v. Wade is ever overturned. We will still see all the same arguments. Instead of people holding up pro-life signs, they’ll be displaying women’s rights signs.
I also like what Andrea said about welfare. Higher welfare payments do not assist children. They increase dependence and illegitimacy, which have a negative effect on children’s development. It is welfare dependence, rather than poverty, which has the most negative effect on children. The longer a child is on a welfare receipt the less income or earnings that child will receive as an adult.
October 7, 2008 at 8:49 pm |
Communism is dead everywhere but North Korea. Even China isn’t really Communist anymore. What you’re criticizing is socialism. And a laizzez-faire economy is what Hoover promised. He believed that the “invisible hand” and “the market” could solve everything, and the armies of unemployed and starving Americans should just wait for the institutions which had trashed the American economy to fix it. That’s why Hoover, the laizzez-faire President, served one term and lost re-election by one of the biggest margins in American history, while FDR, the President who believed in government intervention, went on to serve four terms as President. The laizzez-faire economy committed suicide in the Great Depression by creating problems it couldn’t possibly solve.
The Constitution cannot dictate fiscal policy to the government, since no plan, however detailed, could work centuries late. So however the continuation of welfare policies that started with the New Deal affects America, I cannot see how the Supreme Court can intervene; after all, they have had decades to find Constitutional flaws in many welfare policies. Surely, those that were obviously unConstitutional have already been revoked or changed. The decision on America’s welfare policies and the responsibility for its economic effects will almost certainly belong to the legislative and executive branches.
October 7, 2008 at 9:00 pm |
The Founders were not exactly in agreement on all issues; Hamilton and Jefferson, to give an example, agreed on very little. And the kind of smaller government with a weak executive pictured by Jefferson and his numerous and powerful allies was doomed from the beginning, because the Founders ignored the minor issue of slavery. This made an eventual war over slavery inevitable, and the Civil War massively enhanced the power of the Presidency within the federal government, and established the supremacy of the federal government over the state governments.
Since then, Congress has steadily and voluntarily given increased powers to the executive, especially during wars, and then neglected to take them back afterwards. The Supreme Court does not have the responsibility for giving Congress the authority they handed the Presidency; Congress has the Constitutional power(and duty) to limit what they consider to be excessive Presidential power. If they do not do so, then that is their decision and their fault; the Supreme Court cannot prevent Congress from being stupid, and the Presidency can hardly be expected to decline Congress’s kind willingness to hand over more and more power. Congress needs to take back power from the Presidency, and the only thing preventing them from doing so is their own unwillingness to do so.
October 7, 2008 at 9:13 pm |
Personally, other than the mildly useful bits like freedom of speech and freedom of religion, protection against self-incrimination, and a few other slightly significant laws, I think the Founders and the Framers got America off on the wrong foot.
The single biggest turning point in American history(the FDR years were certainly second) was the Civil War. In the war, the Union broke the power of the states, establishing the real supremacy of the federal government, and with it the end of slavery and “state’s rights”, ended the Founders’ America.
The Founders ignored the minor issue of slavery, established an ineffective and useless “Confederation” governed by Articles which made the federal government a laughingstock, and thought everything would work out for the best. Thankfully, we had Abraham Lincoln and people like him, who were interested in creating a real nation. The idea that “all men are created equal” was an amusing joke in the America of the Founders, due to the institution of slavery. Yet the Founders did nothing to solve the issue, other than discussing how it would “eventually” die while expanding it across the Louisiana Purchase lands.
Lincoln and FDR, not Jefferson, are the real heroes of America. Jefferson wrote about religious freedom(one of his better points; the Virginia Statue of Religous Freedom is a work of genius) and the idea that “all men are created equal”; Lincoln freed the slaves, and FDR turned America into a place where equality of opportunity was something people believed in. From an America of aristocracy and slavery, our country has turned into a decent place to live thanks to people who actually believed the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution more than the people who wrote them did.