I was on a radio
show earlier today where E.J. Dionne was one of the liberal
panelists. Dionne argued that liberals shouldn’t make fun of House
Republicans for their public reading of the Constitution “because
it is our Constitution too.” (I’m quoting from memory.) But he
allowed that the Constitution meant different things to liberals
and conservatives. He elaborated on this view in his Washington
Post
column:
From its inception, the Tea Party movement has treated the
nation’s great founding document not as the collection of shrewd
political compromises that it is but as the equivalent of sacred
scripture.
Yet as Gordon Wood, the widely admired historian of the
Revolutionary era has noted, we “can recognize the extraordinary
character of the Founding Fathers while also knowing that those
18th-century political leaders were not outside history… . They
were as enmeshed in historical circumstances as we are, they had no
special divine insight into politics, and their thinking was
certainly not free of passion, ignorance, and foolishness.”
An examination of the Constitution that views it as something
other than the books of Genesis or Leviticus would be good for the
country.
I’ll leave aside the obvious snark about liberals’ respect for
the books of Genesis or Leviticus and get to the main point: The
argument for strict adherence to the Constitution doesn’t rest on
the Constitution being “sacred scripture” or the Founding Fathers
having a “special divine insight into politics” (though I’d
definitely take them over the contemporary political class).
The Founding Fathers had their disagreements and their flaws, but
the Constitution was the final document containing their
compromises about what the federal government should and should not
do.
The federal government is bound by the Constitution not because
the Constitution or its Framers were perfect, but because it is the
instrument through which the people delegated power to the federal
government. This is a government of laws, not of imperfect men, and
constitutional government is lawful government.
Ed Bradford | 1.4.11 @ 6:24PM
Can a law be written such that the meaning is understood today, tomorrow, and forever?
Liberals take every to change meaning of words/phrases 2 win votes.
I believe that if America wants Obamacare, all should understand it and approve.
Obama/PELOSI/Reid do not.
What does the "Rule of Law" mean 2 a liberal?
Shifting sands of temporal "NEEDS" is all I can figure.
Political control of the economy is long term recipe 4 economic chaos!
Larry| 1.5.11 @ 12:31AM
Well said, James. Fact is, liberals have always complained about the seeming limits placed on government by the Constitution, starting with Wilson and being expressed more forthrightly by FDR and now Obama by dint of his policies and regulatory agenda.
It is not, like some liberals try to imply about conservatives, that power of any kind cannot be trusted. It is power without limits, without checks and balances, that cannot be trusted.
Liberals trust unlimited power, as long as it is in their hands. But there is nothing in history that proves that the left can be trusted with ANY kind of power, limited or unlimited.
MC2000| 1.5.11 @ 10:13AM
Before they commence reading the Constitution on the floor of the House, they should read James' commentary aloud! Liberal pundits like EJ Dionne have spent their careers attacking the character of the founding generation in order to attack the constitution they produced with an intent to exempt future generations (of politicians) from living by its words as written and intended. It is imperative that Republicans read the Constitution (and perhaps add the Federalist Papers so that the clear intent of the founders is not left to interpretation) and only introduce legislation that is within its limits.
Dale Cord| 1.5.11 @ 10:59AM
Reading the Constitution in the chambers of this Congress,is like reading the Bible in a whore house filled with Atheists!