One of the things that bugs me the most about the people yammering for us to get the country back in line with the Founding Fathers' original intent for the Constitution is this: their lack of perspective. They seem to believe that there was a brief, Golden Age in our American past wherein the Constitution was implemented 100% perfectly according to the Founders' intent, and that there also is NO question as to what the Founders' intent was. [The fact that their interpretation of the Founders' intent fits the failed Articles of Confederation more closely than the Constitution is a topic for another post.--Ed.]
I do not condemn them for wishing for "the good old days." All humans seem to have the tendency to think of the past as being a more idyllic, happier, easier time than the present day. [Though in my own defense, I will say that my "good old days" have to do with things that have happened in my own lifetime and thus are formed not just out of my own desires or even my own memories, but are measurable against objective records and facts as corroborated by other living people's memories.--Ed]
I do condemn them for their vision of a "good old days" that can be proven never to have existed except in their own minds. I also condemn them for asking the wrong question to begin with and misusing the principles of logic in answering same. They hold that the Constitution according to the Founders' original intent had (and has) one and only one clear, specific, unambiguous meaning . . . and they point to assorted writings of the Founders to justify their saying so. They conclude that nowadays, the Founders' true original intent has been not just ignored, but positively stomped on . . . mostly by progressives and other evil liberals. They are unshakably rigid in these beliefs.
The problem is, they are not asking the correct question. It's not the case that the Founders had a single, clear, unambiguous original intent, which we sinners have abandoned. The question is: What actually was the Founders' intent in the first place? The Founders' original intent could well have been to create a framework for the government that was strong enough to stand (unlike the already-proven worthless Articles of Confederation), yet flexible enough to let people of the future deal with the problems of the future, problems that not even the Founders could predict. That is, the Founders' original intent could well have been to create a strong yet flexible framework for government, not dictate some unchangeable, perfect, set-in-stone proclamation.
Consider what objective evidence and untwisted logic reveal. First, the mere existence of the copious Federalist Papers, Anti-Federalist Papers, and other articles, essays, correspondence, and publications by the Founders proves that the Founders were NOT of one rigid and united mind-set about the Constitution's meaning. In all these writings they frequently, often vehemently, disagreed with one another about what the Constitution meant and would do once ratified. The sheer physical quantity of the documents establishes that, even without reading all the competing claims those documents actually make.
Second, these "originalists" cherry-pick from all these documents to support their point of view. The opinions of every one of the men considered the Founding Fathers is given equal weight [as long as they agree with it, that is--Ed.]. James Madison, however, has long been recognized as the primary author of the actual Constitution. One would think that he'd have a better idea of what he meant when he wrote any particular phrase or clause than would anyone else. His words explaining what he wrote thus should be given more weight than the words of someone who, even though considered a Founder, did not have a large or even direct role in the Constitution's authorship. Yet Madison is ignored or even actively condemned by these same people when they don't like what he says he meant.
[I have the same problem with the way a lot of people who claim to be Christians interpret the Bible. Excuse me, but not only should the New Testament be given precedence over the Old, Jesus' own words should matter more than anyone else's in either the Old OR New Testament. "Whatsoever you do unto the least of My brethren, you do unto Me" (Matthew 25:40) is the essence of God's New Covenant with humanity, and thus should guide our behavior a lot more than the fire and brimstone, Us against Them, tales of a vengeful Old Testament God.--Ed]
Third, the Founders were no dummies, and they of all people knew the only constant throughout history has been change. Heck, the enormous changes they'd seen just during their own lifetimes at the beginning of the Industrial Revolution illustrate that. Their world was moving from a rural, agrarian social structure to an urban, industrialized one. Enormous improvements in the standard of living for an emerging middle economic class had been seen in just the length of one average lifetime--which was shorter in those days than it is now, remember. While the concept of government by the consent of the governed was not new [don't forget the Magna Carta, dating back to the early 13th century--Ed.], the definition of which "people" were included was broadening, dramatically, as more and more people became economically better-off than their forebears had been. [It's most amusing that many of these "originalists" wouldn't have been considered qualified even to vote, let alone to take a turn at governing, by the standards of the 13th-16th (rich, white, male, titled nobility), 17th (rich, white, male owners of large pieces of real property) and 18th (white, male, property owners)--and 19th (black and other minority males), and even 20th (women)--centuries . . . even the more enlightened, dare I say "revolutionary," standards expressed by some of the Founders.--Ed.]
Individuals no longer had to spend every waking moment providing the bare necessities of food, shelter, and clothing for their families. They had the money, and thus the power, to begin to accumulate goods. They had the time to pay attention to "the larger issues of the day." They could take more control of their own lives than could have any generation before them. [People like Abigail Adams (our first feminist) and the abolitionists just pushed the concept to its logical extremes. But someone has to be on the "far left," as it were, or else what is truly the "center" will appear to be the "far left" to those on the "far right." Again, a topic for detailed exploration on another day.--Ed.]
Fourth, the Founders knew full well that no one could predict the future. They knew that problems would arise; they had no way to anticipate exactly what those problems would be. That's why they were willing to scrap the Articles of Confederation when that framework for government proved impotent. If they could have predicted the future, they'd never have made the mistake of writing the Articles of Confederation--instead of the Constitution--in the first place. They'd have started with the Constitution to begin with. History happens; reality "is." The Founders' miserable experiences under the terms of the weak, states'-rights-oriented Articles of Confederation demonstrated for them that they needed to create something with more teeth. They weren't married to some rigid and unchanging concept of what the right formula for the government would be. Under the terms of the Articles of Confederation, they could not fix the problems of weak government created by those same Articles of Confederation, so they started over with the Constitution. I daresay their experiences with the Articles suggested to them that they needed to build not only teeth, but some measure of flexibility, into the Constitution. But one never hears any of these "originalists" talking about the Articles of Confederation and the actual history that happened while it was in effect . . . most likely because they recognize (at some level) that doing so would demolish their entire argument about the Constitution's meaning and scope.
Fifth, as far as I know, at least, none of the Founders ever claimed to be perfect. And isn't it axiomatic that imperfect beings cannot create perfection? The Founders clearly knew this. Remember, the Preamble to the Constitution says "to create a more perfect Union" and not "to create a perfect Union."
The logic is inescapable. The problem is, none of the people decrying our alleged lack of adherence to the Founders' presumed "original intent" care a whit about logic, though they'd like us to think they do. If they cared about logic, they'd not be so het up about the proposed Islamic center near Ground Zero in New York City. They'd recognize that the First Amendment's protections for religious freedom and the Constitution's overall respect for the concept of private property trump any raw emotional reactions of individuals. They'd also be equally upset that there are many fundamentalist Christian churches close to the Alfred P. Murrah building site and memorial in Oklahoma City, but we've heard nary a peep from any of them about that. They'd also recognize that just as a putative Christian killed Christians in Oklahoma City, so did Muslims kill Muslims when the Twin Towers were attacked. There were two mosques at the World Trade Center, one in each of the towers, remember.
I do hate to sound like a broken record, but this is the same reason I get mad when people claim Ronald Reagan was the greatest president the USA has ever had "because he ended the Cold War." That's not the right question. The right question is whether ending the Cold War was such a good idea in the first place. Admire the Soviet Union or despise it, you cannot deny that the USSR kept the lid on its allied Muslim states, and when it had problems, it was the USSR's money and precious manpower that were put in harm's way, not ours. Thus, ending the Cold War was not a bad idea just from the standpoint of what it did in ballooning our own budget deficits. It was a bad idea in terms of what it loosed on the rest of the world in the decades subsequent.
I have the same reaction to people who won't accept blood transfusions or other modern medical procedures because "God will provide." Maybe the doctors and the modern technology ARE how God has provided. Consider this little morality tale: one March, a frail old man found himself trapped atop the roof of his house during extreme springtime floods. A neighbor came by in his rowboat and offered the old man a lift to the rescue shelter on higher ground, but the old man declined, saying "God will provide." Shortly thereafter, Coast Guard personnel came by in a motor boat and offered their assistance. Again, the old man declined. "God will provide." Still later, a National Guard helicopter crew flew by and prepared to lift the old man to safety, but again, he said no. "God will provide," he said, serenely.
Well, the old man drowned that night. After his orientation tour of Heaven he raised his hand. "I have a question," he said. "I had faith. I was sure that God would provide, and I said that, repeatedly--so why am I here?" St. Peter answered, somewhat sadly, "God provided you a rowboat, a motor boat, and even a helicopter. What were you waiting for, the Titanic?"
If you don't ask the correct question, you'll never get the correct answer, even when it's under your nose or next to your flooded house.
