by Selwyn Duke
"What kind of government have you given us, Dr. Franklin?" This was asked by a curious woman of Benjamin Franklin in Sept. 1787, when he emerged from the last session of the Constitutional Convention. It is said that his response was, "A republic, madam, if you can keep it." If we can keep it.....Franklin included that caveat with good reason, for he was well aware of people's tendency to compromise important principles out of convenience. And, keeping our republic sound entails safeguarding the inviolability of what our government is based on: the fruits of that convention - our Constitution.
This is why I find it so distressing that precious few people understand the importance of the Constitution. Many times I've heard someone wax passionate about a patently unconstitutional idea and give me a "there oughta be a law speech." When I would then mention that the idea would violate the Constitution, the response would almost invariably be the same: "I don't care about the Constitution." What they usually don't realize, though, is that in the name of rectifying one solitary problem they are advocating the erosion of what is our governmental firewall against tyranny. Now, I don't think that most of these people would knowingly undermine the country; no, they simply have no understanding of what the Constitution is, and why it's important to keep it sacrosanct. So, let's talk a bit about the Constitution.
Our Constitution is the only thing that separates us governmentally from Stalinist Russia or Nazi Germany. If you think that democracy does, think again. We are not a democracy, and for good reason. In a democracy, if the majority votes to exterminate a certain minority, it could very well happen. What's to stop it from happening here? Our Constitution. It guarantees each American certain unalienable rights, thereby protecting him from the unjust whims of the masses. After all, people are emotional; they are prone to moodiness, rashness, impulsiveness. Ask someone why he did something ridiculous or destructive and he might say, "It seemed like a good idea at the time." And, just as people can act impulsively as individuals, so can they do so en masse. Only, when an individual does, the damage is usually small in scale, but when the masses do the damage can be of monumental proportions. Damage like what was wrought by the October Revolution in Russia in 1917 the effects of which still plague that nation to this day. This is why James Madison, in Federalist Paper number ten, buttressed his argument for a constitutional republic by saying, "... democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths." And that's why he and the other founders bequeathed to us just such a republic, with a constitution that protects even the weakest among us from the vagaries of the body politic.
To gain a better understanding of the Constitution, it helps to understand that it is in essence the contract that the American people have with each other. When a number of people form a business, they will draw up a contract - and why? It's to ensure that the rights of all the partners will be protected; it prevents one or more of them from, by hook or by crook, trampling upon the rights of the others. And this is exactly what our national contract, our Constitution, does for us.
What would happen though, if those business partners' contract was rendered meaningless, if respect for it degenerated to a point where they were very cavalier about violating it? Well, then might would make right; those who were the best at political maneuvering or had the most clout would hold sway, and they would be able to take advantage of the rest. And this is exactly what happens when we are cavalier about the violation of our contract. The more we allow the notion that the Constitution can be misinterpreted to suit an agenda to become status quo, the more the very freedoms that we hold dear will be in jeopardy. What goes around comes around; when we allow our Constitution to be rendered impotent, we shouldn't be surprised when a part of it that pertains to a right we cherish gets trampled down the road.
Now, you might say that this is all well and good, but it sounds a bit restrictive. After all, how can a growing and evolving civilization allow itself to be hamstrung by rules that were made 200 years ago? Well, it's true that no man-made document can be perfect, so it's reasonable to expect that we should have a way to alter the Constitution if and when imperfections are brought to light. So, let's get back to our business partners, and see if what they would do if their contract was found to be lacking is instructive. They would of course assemble, and if they could agree upon the nature of the change as a GROUP, they would alter the contract and give it their rubber-stamp of approval. And our Founding Fathers provided for just such a mechanism in our contract: it's called "the amendment process." Although really, there are two amendment processes. The first one works in the following manner: an amendment is proposed; it then must be approved by both the House and the Senate by a two-thirds margin. It then is sent to the states for approval, which have seven years to ratify it by a three-quarters margin if they don't, it's dead in the water. The second method has never been employed, and it requires that two-thirds of the state legislatures call for a constitutional convention. Then, whatever bill is drawn up by them must once again be ratified by three-fourths of the states. Sound difficult? Sure is - that's the whole idea. The amendment process is so comprehensive that it ensures the change represents the will of the vast majority of the people; it's so drawn out that it ensures the change is not just the result of a transitory fit of emotionalism.
Now, it's time to pay those illustrative business partners a visit one more time. Let's say that just a couple of them became disenchanted with the contract, and managed to sneak into the place it was being kept and secretly altered the parts that displeased them. Now, if the others were asleep at the wheel, so disengaged that they didn't notice the duplicity, the nefarious act would go unchallenged. But would it be right? Of course not. But this is EXACTLY what happens when activist judges issue rulings that are misinterpretations of the Constitution. This is exactly what happens when Congress makes laws that are unconstitutional and are allowed to stand by a remiss judiciary. And it's exactly what we are advocating when we say, "I don't care about the Constitution." This is the de facto altering of America's contract for selfish reasons, without the approval of most of those affected by the contract. And when we allow it to go unchallenged we are asleep at the wheel. And what happens when a people remains that way for long enough? It veers off into tyranny.
