The lunacy of the right starts with their errant understanding of the constitution.
Constitutional Myth #1: The Right Is 'Originalist,' Everyone Else Is 'Idiotic'
Garrett Epps
Politifact Georgia
reports that pizza magnate Herman Cain told the audience at an Atlanta rally to read the Constitution, explaining that "for the benefit for those that are not going to read it because they don't want us to go by the Constitution, there's a little section in there that talks about life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness ... When you get to the part about life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, don't stop right there, keep reading. 'Cause that's when it says that when any form of government becomes destructive of those ideals, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it. We've got some altering and some abolishing to do."
This quote neatly illustrates two pathologies of 21st-century "constitutionalism."
First, many of these patriots love the Constitution too much to actually read it (in case you were wondering, the language Cain is quoting is from the
Declaration of Independence, not the
Constitution). Second, they love the Constitution so much they want to "alter or abolish" it to make sure it matches the myth in their heads. Those myths are a problem. They get in the way of honest debate. Last week I
proposed a parlor game in which we look at some of the more corrosive myths circulating about the Constitution, and I offered by own list. Readers have responded with some suggestions of their own, and I will answer some of their nominations as the summer wears on. For now, though, I want to start working my way through my own list of the Top 10 Myths about the Constitution. I look forward to thoughtful responses, as the game begins.
Myth #1: The Right Believes in a "Written Constitution," Everyone Else Believes in a "Living Constitution"
In a
2006 speech in Puerto Rico, Justice Antonin Scalia explained why conservatives are the only ones who actually believe in the Constitution. Progressives, he said, believe in "the argument of flexibility," which "goes something like this: The Constitution is over 200 years old and societies change. It has to change with society, like a living organism, or it will become brittle and break. But you would have to be an idiot to believe that. The Constitution is not a living organism, it is a legal document. It says something, and doesn't say other things."
A year later,
George W. Bush told the Federalist Society, "Advocates of a more active role for judges sometimes talk of a 'living constitution.' In practice, a living Constitution means whatever these activists want it to mean."
The idea of a "living constitution" is useful because it lets right-wingers like Scalia pose as principled advocates and ridicule anyone who disagrees with his narrow ideas as an idiot. But if one side of a debate gets to define what the other side supposedly believes, it's no big trick to win the argument.
The argument is a classic bait-and-switch. It begins with the claim that the Constitution has a definite, fixed meaning. We must apply that meaning and only that meaning, or we are "changing" the Constitution. But then it turns out that the words themselves aren't clear. Then we learn that their meaning isn't what's written in the Constitution's text; it is actually somewhere else. The words on the page have to be interpreted, and they are to be interpreted in a secret way that conservatives "know" because they have looked it up in the Big History Book. If we do not accept their claims about what the words "really" mean, we are "changing" what is written on the page, trying to "amend" it on the sly.
Constitutional Myth #1: The Right Is 'Originalist,' Everyone Else Is 'Idiotic' - The Atlantic
Hi
IM2 and thanks for starting this thread on a good and valuable (or invaluable) topic.
I will go back and post "Winner" on your OP for the content and topic,
though I disagree that what you post means something negative.
I think there are good ways to interpret the Original Constitution
that do not cause the conflicts you bring up.
1. First there is nothing wrong with altering and reforming the Constitutional structures, govt and process by either
A. following the given protocols for Amendment (which doesn't negate the ORIGINAL Constitution but follows it)
B. working alongside and adding more institutions or process in ways that aren't prohibited or in conflict with the Constitution
such as structuring a facilitation and representation process between political parties or media groups that are both OUTSIDE the Constitution,
where this doesn't negate anything WITHIN the Constitution
Thus, there are ways of "altering" government that neither require abolishing the Constitution or negating/defying it,
but can either work WITHIN the given process or ALONGSIDE Constitutional Govt without conflict.
This isn't either/or.
So the ORIGINALISTS can still interpret and enforce the standards they follow "literally"
and this doesn't conflict with reforms that either use the Constitutional process or reform
institutions outside the government which still allow for governmental reforms (such as
by setting up nonprofit structures that transfer programs from govt to localized management).
2. as for what the Constitution means to different people, by facilitating agreed policies and solutions
between people and groups with different beliefs, the issues of language and interpretation of terms used
will get resolved in the process.
Fix the problems first, agree on a goal or solution, then the legal and political language will follow.
It's perfectly natural to have people and groups with different political beliefs on the meaning,
same as with other religions, and Constitutionalism (and Socialism) are both Political Religions.
Of course we are going to have differences.
So if we follow the meaning and spirit of the Constitution, then govt should not
be abused to DICTATE political religions or beliefs, but people have freedom of
choice and conscience to pursue and exercise the beliefs and affiliations which represent them.
In short, it would be in conflict with the very spirit of the Constitution to
negate, dictate, regulate or prohibit the beliefs of those who don't hold the same beliefs about the Constitution.
So neither could the originalists impose their interpretation and beliefs,
but consensus should be sought which represents the beliefs and free choice of individuals.
That's why I say apply and exercise the "freedom of speech and of the press" and the
"right to petition to redress grievances" so that consensual solutions and policies are formed,
and then the language needed to document those can be agreed upon between these groups.
We don't have to agree on beliefs in order to communicate common solutions.
I don't see this as an obstruction to have different beliefs and interpretations of Constitutional laws and process.
It's natural that every organized religion has always had at least TWO major denominations.
This is a natural development, and the process normally involves the two camps working
as complements to check and balance each other so that the policies agreed on between
them reflect the entire spectrum.
We may have to "reform" our attitudes and perception of these conflicting ideological beliefs and parties.
Instead of pitting one against the other as competing to make the other wrong and to blame for problems,
we would do better to approach this as an issue of self-representation and letting the parties represent the
beliefs of those members who consent to that representation.
By agreeing to recognize the validity and sovereignty of each party, similar to religions having the
right to their own policies paid for by their own members, then we CAN communicate and facilitate
exchange of ideas, both problems/objections and solutions/objectives, and formulate where parties
AGREE what should be common public policy.
We can have both the diversity where we fund our own agenda and beliefs,
and the unity where we AGREE on policy and on funding programs through govt.
Again, this isn't either/or.
IM2 would it help if I "blame the white male culture" for this habit of thinking that everything has to be framed
as "either/or" or "them vs. us" or "my territory turf or pack vs. yours."
What you blame as "double standard abuse of individualism" I would agree with you
if you are talking about THIS pattern of setting up one side to be wrong in order to prove another side.
If that whole pattern is what you fault when you blame "individualism on white men or white culture"
I would agree with you this is counterproductive and destructive for the purpose of political exploitation.
So if you are engaging in the same, I would ask you to refrain from
this "bad influence of white culture" to set up conflicting sides like this
in order to pimp for points and gain political leverage over others.
Please do not fall for this trap, which I am happy to blame on "white men's culture"
if that's what it takes to dissuade you from this political "divide and conquer" strategy.
