The American Spectator : Reading the Constitution

Text Size

Reading the Constitution

By Daniel Oliver on 1.12.11 @ 6:07AM

Focusing the nation’s attention on some astounding facts.

The formal reading of the Constitution in the House of Representatives is one of those events that bring a knowing smile to the face of sophisticated liberals, the sort of people who curl up next to an eco-friendly fire on Sunday morning with their hard-copy New York Times Book Review while their partner reads the New York Review of Books and most Americans are taking their children to church clinging to their Bibles and if they’re lucky enough to live in the right state their guns too, though ammunition was in short supply last autumn.

The New York Times called the exercise an “empty gesture.” Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D., N.Y.) called it a “ritualistic reading” and said that it was “total nonsense.”

Those and other sophisticates are the heirs of Woodrow Wilson, who once compared the Constitution to “political witchcraft.” “Living political constitutions,” Wilson wrote, “must be Darwinian in structure and in practice.” For Wilson, the Constitution was “one thing in one age, another in another.”

The Constitution as Darwinian is the essence of the progressives’ position on constitutional government, which is why they find the public reading so… quaint.

But the reading may focus the nation’s attention on an astounding fact: we actually have a constitution, and it has — or had — a purpose. And not only do we have a constitution. We also have a Constitution Day.

Constitution Day (September 17) is actually an official federal holiday, though it is not observed by granting time off from work for federal employees which is a shame because the less they do the freer we are or as Milton Friedman used to put it we should be glad we don’t get all the government we pay for. The act creating Constitution Day requires each educational institution receiving federal funds, which is, roughly speaking, 99.99 percent of them (though some put the figure at 99.999 percent), to hold an educational program on the United States Constitution for its students on that day, and it might be useful for one of the incoming Tea Partiers to ask Arne Duncan, the secretary of education, how rigorously his department monitors the faithfulness of the 99.99 percent, and, as the follow-up question, why the department hasn’t been more rigorous in enforcing the law’s requirement, assuming that its current level of enforcement is above the level of rigor mortis, but only for the purpose of embarrassing the feds and not with the intention of having them further impose their own considerable incompetence on the grantees.

Of course, not all liberals abjure the Constitution. The American Civil Liberties Union, calling itself the “nation’s guardian of liberty,” says it works “daily” to defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties that the Constitution guarantees — notwithstanding that the first issue the ACLU lists on its website is the death penalty, which, even though specifically referred to in the Constitution, the ACLU seeks to abolish.

Still, the ACLU’s position on the rights of the accused has not been wholly mistaken and should be considered carefully by those who believe in limited government, which includes most of those cheering the reading of the Constitution in the House of Representatives.

The point of the constitutional protections for people who have been accused by the state is to make sure that the state proves its case. And if it can’t, then the accused goes free — even if she’s guilty. The reason is that the Framers, like the Tea Partiers, feared government and its power more than they feared random lawbreakers. The state is a far larger threat to our liberties than any mere criminal could possibly be. That is a point conservatives need to remember. (Of course, that is not true of terrorists: they do threaten us every bit as much as the unrestrained state, which is why we treat them as enemy combatants, not as mere criminals, and don’t accord them the same constitutional protections.)

So, as the Tea Partiers and the liberals line up to trade punches, they should each pay attention to their opponents’ positions. In the field of criminal law, liberals, like conservatives, do value limits on state power after all.

The New York Times also said last week: “The new House leadership says this [reading] is necessary because the health care law and other measures that Republicans do not like have veered from the Constitution. But it is the judiciary that ultimately decides when a law is unconstitutional, not the transitory occupant of the speaker’s chair.”

Yes, but: The Supreme Court may have the last word on what is constitutional, but Congress has the first word, which means that if it pays attention it may greatly limit the scope of the judiciary, which may cause distress over at the New York Times and among the sophisticated liberals with the knowing smiles, but even good public policy has a price.

About the Author

Daniel Oliver is a Senior Director of White House Writers Group in Washington, D.C. He served as Chairman of the Federal Trade Commission under President Ronald Reagan.

Letter to the Editor View all comments (48) | Leave a comment Leave a comment

SC Mike| 1.12.11 @ 6:51AM

Thank you so much for the reminder, you’ve given me an idea. I shall set about writing the school boards, school superintendents, and other education honchos to ask them about their programs for this year’s Constitution Day celebration on September 17. It should be fun.

Appleby| 1.12.11 @ 7:18AM

If anybody remembers any of this come September, a better plan would be organizing with your friends for flash mobs in malls and parks and airports to read the Constitution aloud, or anyway the Bill of Rights. Put it in your Binkie and on the day, do it.

Gretchen| 1.14.11 @ 3:06PM

What a MARVELLOUS idea!

Sea_Hunter| 1.12.11 @ 7:37AM

Before anyone gets too far into the reading of the Constitution the question needs to be asked, what are we reading? Are we reading through a "living document" to be changed at the will of those that govern, or are we reading a social contract that can be changed only at the will of those whom are governed? I plead the latter argument.

It is well and good for those who govern to read the Constitution, but it may well be a meaningless exercise if we whom are governed by it are ignored in its' modification.

I absolutely agree with Appleby that the Constitution should be read aloud in every public arena to be found come this September. Though, I do fear that the ACLU would claim this to be a public exercise of religion and demand through the courts that such readings be banned.

Perhaps public readings of the Constitution would remind us all that the only means of retaining the protections of that social contract is if we the governed rise up to deman that our rights remain in tact, that modification comes from only the people.

Appleby| 1.12.11 @ 10:37AM

When Ted Turner tried to ban the Confederate [battle] Flag from his stadium, the response was to show up wearing a t-shirt with the flag printed on it and the slogan "Ban us all, Ted!" The policy was dropped.

Should the ACLU attempt to ban public readings of the Constitution, t-shirts bearing the original 10 Bill of Rights amendments could serve the same purpose.

P.S. Reading aloud has become a lost art. This could also be a boost to that art.

Purpleguy| 1.12.11 @ 8:48PM

The ACLU would not protest the reading of the Constitution - thinking so is just stupid rhetoric. In fact, the liberal, progressive, left in America was thrilled to have the US Constitution read aloud on the Floor of the House of Representatives. Saying that all on the left were against the reading of the Constitution is like saying the right are against tax cuts - it's just stupid - and wrong.

Nancy Pelosi| 1.13.11 @ 4:01PM

"In fact, the liberal, progressive, left in America was thrilled to have the US Constitution read aloud on the Floor of the House of Representatives."

Are you serious?! Are you serious?!

Intelligent Design| 1.12.11 @ 8:01AM

I recommend a book titled "The Dirty Dozen - How Twelve Supreme Court Cases Radically Expanded Government and Eroded Freedom", by Robert A. Levy and William Mellor. (One chapter is about "lawmaking by administrative agencies").

The House should hold public hearings to discuss major laws which violate the Constitution. Social Security would be a good start.

Mark| 1.16.11 @ 8:42PM

Eradicating the withholding tax is a good second place to start as well!

Stormzeye| 1.12.11 @ 9:09AM

Great piece. Let's get active with our local school boards and find out what their plans are for the upcoming Constitution Day. Saving our children from liberal/progressives is the greatest challenge facing Conservatives.

LighteningFire| 1.12.11 @ 9:24AM

We need to ensure our schools follow the LAW on Sept. 17th, and not the lies and manipulations of the left-wing!

Joe D.| 1.12.11 @ 9:55AM

Daniel Oliver, you are a little wrong. As we Tea Partiers have learn. The Congress has the first and last words on the constitution. If you follow the early history of the country. The President and congress did not listen to the courts if they did not agree and it was not constitutional, ei the Madison case is a perfect example.

Albert| 1.12.11 @ 10:49AM

One should remind the Democrats in Congress and at their Riefenstahl-like propagandists at the NYT that the US Constitution is the LAW. The Supreme Law of the Land, according to Article 6. And members of Congress are BOUND to that Law, Mr. Wilson's notions of witchcraft and anachronisms notwithstanding. The whole point of having a Constitution is to establish the Law under which the government operates. If the government itself can redefine that Supreme Law, or change its meaning or applicability, then the Constitution is effectively meaningless and government can for all practical purposes do anything it wants. The true Supreme authority in these United States is WE the People and WE the People need to vote out of office those who piss on the Supreme Law and openly violate that Law. Round 1 was last November 2. Round 2 is coming next year.

constitutional lawyer| 1.12.11 @ 11:22AM

And where were you during the years 2001-2009?

David W| 1.12.11 @ 12:47PM

Please provide specifics. Don't just flame and then step back. I probably know where you are going with your statement but I'd like to know for sure (and I will be among the many who say that Bush the Second was not perfect, though the Democrats did control both sides of Congress during his last two years).

Albert| 1.12.11 @ 3:36PM

During the Bush II years I was complaining loud and often about a variety of things, the "Patriot Act" and the creation of the Department of Homeland Securrity chief among them. But I WILL give credit to Bush II for two items: John Roberts and Samuel Alito. Without them, the 2nd Amendment would likely be usurped by the judiciary by now. Now, where were YOU during 1993-2001? The whole point of my post is that leftists refuse to view the Constitution as law (I was told this in no uncertain terms by college professors) and they do this purposefully, in order to create an image of "legitimacy" for their many usurpations.

Purpleguy| 1.12.11 @ 8:53PM

"The whole point of my post is that leftists refuse to view the Constitution as law" - Really? Could you please tell me where in the Constitution a Corporation is a listed as person, with full rights of citizens, able through free speech to fling money around in our elections, tainting and corrupting them forever? The Roberts Court has been as activist as any Court that the right has complained about forever - but this time they rule in the right's favor.

Albert| 1.12.11 @ 9:08PM

Your question does not logically follow from your quote. And your question itself is based on an assumption not in evidence. And your statement about the Roberts Court is flatly absurd. Get a clue. The simple truth is, without the Roberts Court, the Bill of Rights would be a meaningless piece of tissue. Go read a few "opinions" written by Breyer and Ginsburg, and don't get me started on Kagan and Sotomayor.

Purpleguy| 1.12.11 @ 9:14PM

Can't defend the premise that the corporation is a person - is that it? Why else would you try misdirection and divert attention from the issue - "Without them, the 2nd Amendment would likely be usurped by the judiciary by now." Just because you used one Amendment as an example, doesn't mean I can't use one to counter your own argument.
The fact you cannot dispute my assertion that designating a corporation as a person is a, how did you put it? A usurpation by the judiciary, oh yeah. Just a logical argument brought to its absurd conclusion. And you complain - as if the Roberts Court is some protector of our Bill of Rights anymore than any previous Courts before them. Too bad history and facts don't bear you out - too bad for you.

CTYankee| 1.13.11 @ 9:18PM

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press......"

No mention of person, corporation, legal entity, nada. "Shall make no law" is pretty clear to me. It does not grant any exceptions. If you find this intolerable, than petition to have the Constitution amended. Article Five describes the process.

Richard Baker| 1.12.11 @ 11:05AM

As a Virginian, I'm sorry that Wilson came from my home state. As I get older, I find that his professorial arrogance and contempt for our Constitution and system is an embarrassment to the Old Dominion.

Tom Ritter| 1.12.11 @ 11:20AM

So the ACLU values the Constitution? Then let's see them take a stand on the First Amendment, viz.,

The First Amendment grants anyone the right to say anything to a voluntary audience.

But the First Amendment does NOT give you the right to force anyone to listen to (or see) you. Let me give an example:

The knuckleheads who demonstrate at the funerals of fallen heroes cite their First Amendment rights. But the protesters have NO First Amendment right to force unwilling people to view their protest

Purpleguy| 1.12.11 @ 9:02PM

Untrue - While I condemn the disgusting activities of those idiots that protest at funerals of heroes, freedom of speech means that you will protect those free speech rights of even those who's very words you cannot stand. That is true freedom of speech, and is an American ideal.

Richard Baker| 1.12.11 @ 11:44AM

constitutional lawyer:
Ah yes, another member of those with Bush Derangement Syndrome. Contrary to your beliefs, MANY Conservatives were incensed regarding a great deal of W's actions. But I guess you knew that already, right?

David W| 1.12.11 @ 12:54PM

I agree that the constitution should be a living document. Times have changed and it needs to keep up.

Just like the original document of the Ten Commandments has been modified to keep up. After all, Bill Clinton and John Edwards and Ted Kennedy proved that the commandment not to commit Adultry was no longer valid. The commandment to not bear false witness against your neighbors went away a long time ago with Bush's election (how many accused him of bad behavior? Okay, this happened well before him). There is that one about not coveting anything that belongs to your neighbor - the desire to spread the wealth shows that that commandment went away back in the 60s.

I guess based upon how the Ten Commandments has changed I guess the Constitution should also change (that was sarcasm or irony, I forget which).

gen s.| 1.12.11 @ 1:00PM

Typical judicial supremacy tripe: "But it is the judiciary that ultimately decides when a law is unconstitutional, not the transitory occupant of the speaker's chair."

In the American constitutional system, all elements of government are created by and subject to the Constitution. No one branch may take to itself the sole power to be the final interpreter of the Constitution. Each branch is to make its own determination on the constitutionality of their actions. To do otherwise is tyranny and anti-Constitutional.

Imagine if the Executive branch proclaimed itself the sole, final arbiter of constitutionality. Such an action would be the proclamation of rebellion against the Constitution’s master – We the People.

Those who espouse the judicial supremacy line show their deep ignorance or mendacity.

Albert| 1.12.11 @ 3:46PM

Absolutely correct! The Constitution was written by the States and ratified by the States. Only the States have power over the Constitution. Congress can not amend the Constitution, the President can not amend it, and the Supreme Court can not amend it or alter it through phony "interpretations" (can we say "emanations and penumbras?") Nor can all three branches acting in unison amend it. Only the States. Power is hierarchical, and the supreme power is the People, the next level is the State governments, composed of elected representatives of those States, next is the US Constitution, a creation of those States, and then there is the US government which operates legally UNDER the Constitution, not over it. When a government acquires the power to change the law or constitution under which it legally functions, then that government is no longer a servant, it has become the master. This is what led to the Roman Republic's downfall and to the rise of Empire. It can and will happen again if we let it.

Bill| 1.12.11 @ 5:57PM

We agree to the U.S. Supreme Court being the final arbiter of the U.S. Constitution by general consent, under the principle of case law, Marbury v. Madison and its progeny. There's a lot of precedent. But precedent can be changed when perceptions of justice, social changes, and so on occur, so the Supreme Court as the "permanent Constitutional Convention" is not engraved in stone and can be changed whenever it's appropriate.

But it should be kept in mind that someone has to be the tie-breaker and it makes sense that the high judges of our country be entrusted with that chore. But the responsibility for that chore can be taken away from them.

Purpleguy| 1.12.11 @ 9:08PM

Wrong - that precedent, of the Judiciary being the final arbiter of a law's Constitutionality, was set by Justice Marshall in Marbury v. Madison in the early 1800's. In fact, Thomas Jefferson worried in the beginning that the Judiciary would become the least effective or powerful branch. Tha changed with Marbury v. Madison. Perhaps you should read a little more about the Constitution and the 3 branches and government, and listen a little less to those who want to misdirect you to fit their agenda.

Bob Grant| 1.12.11 @ 9:37PM

Does the constitution allow the federal government positive or negative rights?

Nick| 1.13.11 @ 12:16AM

Is that John Marshall, ther first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, according to you, PurpleJackass?

Purpleguy| 1.13.11 @ 11:10AM

That is, John Marshall, 4th Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, arguably the most influential Chief Justice of all, who sat on the bench for pver 30 years from 1801 - 1835. In case you were unaware.

Nick| 1.13.11 @ 11:37AM

It was you who was "unaware," PurpleJackass.

For, it was you, who claimed that John Marshall was the first Chief Justice, here, on a AmSpec thread, several months ago.

Thus, showing all of us your complete ignorance of the Constitution and American history, dolt.

Roger McKinney| 1.12.11 @ 1:59PM

The Supreme Court has whittled away at the Constitution until it consists of nothing more than the general welfare and the interstate commerce clauses. For the past 150 years the Court has allowed the federal government to do anything imaginable under those two clauses.

There is no use in reading any of the Constitution but those two clauses.

Les Nesman| 1.12.11 @ 2:16PM

You'er argument doesn't hold up for the terrorists not having any rights. The government gets to determine who the terrorist is. What recourse does a citizen have against that accusation? After Patriot I & II and Military Commissions Act, none. No recourse for being added to TSA's no fly list either. We have given the government too much power in this regard.

hugh bnyn| 1.12.11 @ 4:22PM

STILL MORE ASTOUNDING FACTS:

John Calvin was the REAL father of America."
-George Bancroft
U.S. Historian emeritus pre-eminent
1830

---He saw ---he knew ---he was there...

FACT IS genuine American scriptural, spiritual realtiy has been usurped and snuffed a la
the 'charitable ecumenism' of the Rockefeller
Foundation and its globalist, collectivist front organization --The Council of 'Churches'
among others.

Empathy swirls, inclusion fantasies and
soul damning, eugenicidal delusions galore
have followed in its wake (THINK Billy Graham,
Oprah, Glenn Beck, FOX News and its BOGUS,
globalist directed 'populism').

STOP falling for those Freemasonic and Arminian
Heresy sideshows ---they're DEADLY.

BELIEVE ME, I KNOW

jstwndring| 1.12.11 @ 7:03PM

"The New York Times also said last week: "The new House leadership says this [reading] is necessary because the health care law and other measures that Republicans do not like have veered from the Constitution. But it is the judiciary that ultimately decides when a law is unconstitutional, not the transitory occupant of the speaker's chair."
-----------------------------------------------------------
Hey idiots at the NYT: Congress has waaaaaaaaaaaaaay more authority than the U.S. Supreme Court. All the court can do is issue its opinion on a matter of law. It cannot remove law, nor can it create law. Ever. Only Congress can create or remove law. Congress can also remove judges, and, in fact, entire courts if they want. They have done it before. In fact, when the Republicans get the chance, they should neuter the 9th Circus Court out west, and possibly just eliminate it all-together since they are ruling California against the people's will--which, by the way, they have zero authority to do. Why don't Republicans ever point that out? Oh yeah, Roe v. Wade is a huge money maker. Don't wanna piss off all those "doctors" in those "clinics".

Purpleguy| 1.12.11 @ 9:09PM

Way to be an American - idiot.

gary siebel| 1.13.11 @ 1:03AM

You neglect to mention the many Repubs who also deliberately avoided the reading of the Constitution in the House.

Also, you have apparently never read or heard about Daniel Shay's Rebellion, or you wouldn't have claimed the 1787 Convention was more worried about govt power than random violence. The Rebellion was an important factor in calling the Convention in the first place. Madison, Hamilton, Washington, Franklin, et al, were actually more worried about the WEAK govt powers under the Confederation, than an excess of power in the Fed.

Daniel Webster| 1.13.11 @ 9:33AM

OK so John Jay was the first Chief Justice. The Dartmouth College case determined that a Corporation was a Person in the eyes of the law.(no ass to kick no sooul to damn) A court asked if the 14th amendment was meant to apply to corporations one of the authers said yes. He also said during the debate before adoption that it applied to chinamen and Jews. (That's why it applies to "anchor babies") I believe that the general incorporation statutes (Dartmouth was a specific legislative enactment) contain a waver permitting regulation.
Congress has power to determine if a bill is constitutional. The President is obliged to veto a bill he believes is unconstitutional. Thus every branch is involved in determining ifpolicies are constitutional.

Richard Baker| 1.13.11 @ 11:27AM

Those damned Freemasons! What a loon.

hugh BNYN| 1.14.11 @ 2:56AM

--ONCE AGAIN, even beyond this---

"John Calvin was America's REAL Founding Father.'
-George Bancroft
American Historian Emeritus Pre-eminent
1830

HE knew ---HE saw ---HE was there.

DON'T fall for the Arminian Heresy, squishy
Masonic version of the essential nature of America at its founding.

These people have spend centuries undermining and co-opting that essense and, at this moment,
hold us on the very brink of globalist POST American eugenics 'realism'.

PULL AWAY from ALLLLLL franchise slum outlets of opinion. They're designed to co-opt
your genuine concerns and standardize opinion
into neatly controlled opposition set-ups.

As the ghastly agenda of globalism and world
eugenocide pass UNDENIABLY into the light
of consciousness (elimination of culture and
'eased' extermination of 90% of humanity by
2100) ----you might want to reconsider the
fundamental scriptural doctrine of Man's Fall
and subsequent TOTAL DEPRAVITY beyond the
pale of soveriegnly bestowed divine grace.

From Arminian Heretic and tent show collectivizers Billy Graham and 'the secular
women's version' --Oprah Winfrey, to that
dubious squishy enmeshment purveyor
with the ten year old's style of address
----BEWARE

------PULLL AWAY from the franchise slum.

Download ALLLL the Calvin, Bunyan and John Gill you can find. Read, study, contemplate and
absorb it---along with scripture from the Geneva,
rather than the freemasonic King James Bible.

Meet and discuss and share in small, intimate
pprivate groups.

SEEEE the con----------

YOU WILL BE AMAZED

Timely Renewed | 1.27.11 @ 5:02PM

To really solve our problems we need to restore the original constitutional limits on the federal government. The only way I can see to do that is constitutional amendments restoring the Constitution’s original meaning and structure.

However, the federal Congress is not going to approve by two-thirds vote constitutional amendments limiting federal power. Therefore, we must first amend the amendment process itself to eliminate the unnecessary convention now required by Article V and permit States to directly initiate amendment proposals. This will break the current de facto federal congressional and judicial monopoly on interpreting the Constitution, and permit grassroots patriots on the state level to restore the Constitution by amendment. See http://www.timelyrenewed.com

Adidas | 8.11.11 @ 5:44AM

is good

العاب | 4.10.12 @ 12:55PM

thank you

John Mike | 2.26.13 @ 7:24AM

I think that American Constitution is a great constitution. I got impressed when I read important points of American constitution.

Latest Headlines

Foreign Policy as Farce

Jed Babbin|83 comments

Revenge of the Fruitcakes

Peter Hitchens|16 comments

The Biggest Fool of All

Doug Bandow|114 comments

When Did Matty Tell Hatty?

Frank Schell|18 comments

Can Liturgical Music Be Saved?

Patrick O'Hannigan|50 comments

Shah Na Na

Mark Tooley|22 comments

The Mole in Don Draper

James Bowman|31 comments

Jeff Sessions’ Conservative Populism

Matthew Walther|68 comments

The Spectacle Blog

High Court Strikes Down Arizona Voter Law

Jordan Gonzalez | 6.17.13

Waiting for the Middle East to Combust over Syria

Kaylin Bugos | 6.17.13

Snowden’s Online Q&A Leaves Many un-Aed Qs

Luca Gattoni-Celli | 6.17.13

Hannity: Secure the Border First

Jeffrey Lord | 6.17.13

A Grave New World: The Political Price of Overpopulation

Anne Hobson | 6.17.13

Serious Welfare Reform…in Massachusetts

Claire Healey | 6.17.13

Pelosi Misuses the Word “Sacred”

Rich Lizardo | 6.17.13

Keep the IRS Scandal Alive

Matt Purple | 6.17.13

FLASHBACK TO: 1995

Pope Culture

By George Sim Johnston

A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck

By P.J. O'Rourke

Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
Dames at Sea

By John Corry
In the Absence of Guns

By Mark Steyn

In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
The Metaphysical Martini

By Werner J. Dannhauser
Counting the Costs of Clintonism

By Robert H. Bork

The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
Chuck McHagel

By George Neumayr

It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted

By Douglas Bartholomew
It’s the Best Time of the Year

By Mark Steyn

The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
The Bush Crack-Up

By Brit Hume

Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?

The American Spectator