Constitutional love should not be blind

Reverence for the document can have a downside.

Philadelphia Inquirer – February 3, 2011

I am a big fan of the U.S. Constitution. I carry a copy of it in my back pocket — a compact edition courtesy of the National Constitution Center. My students carry copies of it, too, though they generally keep theirs in their backpacks.

File Photograph -This early draft of the U.S. Constitution was published by Philadelphia’s Evening Chronicle.

We spend several weeks every fall studying the document’s seven articles and the Bill of Rights. Afterward, we continue to look at various sections and paragraphs almost daily as other sources make reference to the Constitution. And we examine the later amendments as we reach their ratification dates in our chronological survey of American history.

It had never occurred to me that Americans’ devotion to their wonderfully spare and succinct blueprint for government might have a downside — until recently.

We face some serious challenges as a nation these days, and our representatives seem even less willing than usual to consider responsible solutions. Instead, they increasingly cluster around the Constitution, competing with each other to be seen as its true defenders.

Unfortunately, though, it’s not the Constitution that needs protecting. It’s the environment; it’s our competitive position in the global economy; it’s the triple-A rating of U.S. Treasury bonds.

The British worry less about defending their small-c constitution, which consists of laws, statutes, legal precedents, and writings on political philosophy accumulated over many centuries. But Americans distinguish between a single, few-thousand-word document written in 1787 and all of the related material that has built up around it since the summer of that year. And that doesn’t even include our 50 state constitutions, the first 13 of which preceded the U.S. Constitution and provided models for it.

Brevity can be a strength, but our obsession with our big-C Constitution sometimes limits our perspective and discourages creative thinking about solutions to our 21st-century problems. In the worst cases, we use our allegiance to the document as an excuse to avoid innovation and experimentation.

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia maintains that the Constitution is not a living document. How’s that? The directions for altering it are built in!

Since the Constitution’s ratification, it has been amended to, among other things, abolish slavery, give women the vote, and empower the people to elect senators. Clearly, a majority of the Founding Fathers would not have supported these changes, but who cares? Most Americans alive today do support them.

The tea-party movement wants every congressional act to specify the constitutional authority for it. And legislators already spend plenty of time constitutionally contorting themselves to make such connections.

Sponsors of the health-care bill, for example, claim that requiring all Americans to purchase health insurance is justified by the commerce clause of Article 1, which gives Congress the authority to regulate interstate commerce. This is a stretch. But the important question isn’t whether the mandate is justified by the commerce clause. It’s whether it’s necessary to solve the problem.

We need creative, unencumbered thinking. We can decide which ideas are good ones, and the arguments we have about them need not, in most cases, revolve around their constitutionality.

I’m not suggesting a radical break with the past. We have repeatedly ignored the Constitution when it suited our ends, without even bothering about amendments. In 2002, for example, Congress voted to hand over its constitutionally delegated authority to declare war (on Iraq) to the president. In 1980, the Supreme Court upheld a congressional act creating “set-asides” for minority-owned businesses in federally funded public-works programs, even though the justices admitted the law was, strictly speaking, unconstitutional.

Our country’s 1787 charter contains some important ideas, but it is not a sacred text. It does not hold the answers to the debt crisis, global warming, health-care inequities, international terrorism, or gun crimes committed by the mentally ill. In the search for constructive solutions to the problems of the day, it would help if we adopted a broader definition of constitution.

24 thoughts on “Constitutional love should not be blind

  1. That was a necessary and very thoughtful article about the US Constitution. I’m afraid it won’t influence the people who really need it, i.e.,Scalia, Alito and Thomas and likely Roberts as well.
    Charlotte Glauser

  2. Excellent article in this morning’s Inquirer. Your students are fortunate having you as their teacher.

    I’m 81 – I had a class in political science in my freshman year at Penn, 1947 or 1948, which I remember vividly. The instructor pointed out our Constitution was a living document, to be interpreted as times changed. He said it was that fact our country had been able to survive so long without major turmoil. I’m sure he excluded the Civil War – I don’t remember that part.

    At my age I have a difficult time accepting all the guns on our street. AK 47s, larger clips for revolvers, etc. Times have changed. Manufacturers recall baby cribs when a flaw in design is responsible for a couple of deaths. Auto manufacturers keep adding safety features, and so forth. We Americans are so dumb sometimes.

    David Sautter
    Warrington, PA

  3. Greetings, Mr. Calder. My name is Tom Gonzalez and I am visiting the Philadelphia area from Michigan. I happened to read todays (2/3/2011) Philly Inquirer and your commentary on the Commentary page. I want to thank you for taking the time to write and submit such a rational,reasoned opinion piece. In this time of ignorance and irrational,knee-jerk, allegiance to dogma and ideology such balanced thinking is a breath of fresh air. You might want to consider writing similar pieces for media news sources that sorely need balanced views like the Wall street Journal or Fox News.

  4. Dear Mr. Caldor;
    For a teacher and apparent historian your comments on the Constitution of the United States was quite disappointing. While in on sentence you say “change” is built in to the Constitution in the next you seem to say the method proscribed should be ignored and only final results are important. Topics like the debt problem are only problems because our elected representatives are not willing to fund programs that they vote into law . They are afraid of voter backlash if they raise taxes and THAT is how the Constitution is suppose to work. The commerce clause as long been used by political groups that want change but are afraid of voting for it.
    According to your theory of progress, it by definition it must come from whoever is in charge at the moment. George Bush and Dick Chaney were correct on detainees at Guantonamo because they were at the top of the heap at the moment. If Congress wants to cure homelessness just like health care they can just mandate everyone but a house.
    Of course I know you already are aware of these problems. As an educator you seem much more interested in outcomes than process. That is what is discouraging! When a new wave of trendy thought comes into being and a group like possibly “national socialist ” come roaring on to the scene to create a brand new future for our beloved country then I guess you will not be so enamoured of results and scamper back to due process.
    Garth R. Berner

    • You are absolutely right about the risks of straying from the limiting features of the Constitution.
      I agree with you, but I have been struck lately by the down sides of dogmatic adherence to the single document.
      I should have made it clearer that I believe strongly in limited government but not government that limits our freedom to explore new and perhaps better ways of doing things.

  5. I would just like to caution you about your flexibility on the US Constitution, sir. First, let me say that your students are lucky to have a teacher as passionate and knowlegable as yourself. If only more of our nation’s civics teachers taught about the Constitution the way you do, our country would be a better place. In my experience, it is a hallmark of Friends schools that they are blessed with such engaged, civic minded teachers.

    This is only to remind you that the Constitution is the best protection for the things Progressives care about. As someone who cares about the rights of the little guy, I don’t want anyone– you or the other side– playing fast and loose with our Constitution.

    Flexibility, it must be rememberd, can work both ways. If Progressives are willing to stretch, fudge, or ignore certain things in the Constitution, the other side will eventually do the same. My fear is that however far you stretch it to the left, the other side will one day stretch it to the right.

    I know it is difficult task, but imagine that some day an expanded conservative majority rules the Supreme Court. Then there will be people like you saying how the wording of the Constitution is important, and that a small group of conservative judges or politicians can not randomly change the clear text of the document. They will protest against these conservative jurists reading what they presume to be, “the signs of the times,” or “evolving standards of justice,” into the Constitution in order to make up all kinds of strange, scary jurisprudence.

    No, it is better (believe it or not) to stick with Justice Scalia’s view that the Constitution is only living to the extent that it is properly amended. This difficult, demanding, democratic process ensures that a slim, powerful minority on either side of the ideological divide can not rule by creating “penumbras and emanations” that are impossible for more sensible folks to see.

  6. I disagree strongly to your commentary in today’s Inquirer. Our Constitution is indeed sacred and should not be interpreted loosely. Our founders intended strict interpretation and the Federalist papers written by Madison, Hamilton and Jay made that clear.

    George Washington advised,”The basis of our political systems is the right of the people to make and to alter their Constitutions of Government. But the Constitution which at any time exists, ’till changed by an explicit and authentic act of the whole People is sacredly obligatory upon all.” This includes our federal judiciary, legislature and executive branch.

    Past illegal activity is not an excuse for continued violations.

    The intent of the Constitution was to constrain the Federal government to specific limited powers. The tenth amendment even states so.

    Of the five items that you list in the last paragraph only two can be considered issues for the federal government and concern; terrorism and the federal debt.

    • Thank you for you note.
      I appreciate your thoughtful response.
      I’m not sure I think that “intentions” are significant.
      If we spend time arguing about what the founders intended, it seems to me as though things get very murky.
      The “necessary and proper” clause sits there temptingly at the end of Sec. 8, suggesting all sorts of possibilities.
      You’re right about the 10 amendment but then the difficulty becomes differentiating between the government acting under an existing power and exercising a new power.
      I agree wholeheartedly with you that “limited government” is a generally a good thing.

      • I disagree with you about “intentions”, and the Federalist Papers make them clear. Jefferson wrote; “”The Constitution on which our Union rests, shall be administered by me [as President] according to the safe and honest meaning contemplated by the plain understanding of the people of the United States at the time of its adoption — a meaning to be found in the explanations of those who advocated, not those who opposed it, and who opposed it merely lest the construction should be applied which they denounced as possible.” –Thomas Jefferson, letter to Mesrs. Eddy, Russel, Thurber, Wheaton and Smith, 1801

        If you’re suggesting this clause; “To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof” it too is clear. Section 8 allows for the federal government to levy taxes for carrying out the powers vested in the federal government by the Constitution ONLY.
        “If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one, subject to particular exceptions.” James Madison, letter to Edmund Pendleton, 21 January 1792
        “The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite.” James Madison, Federalist No. 45

        Article I section 8 clearly indicates that the power to tax is only for those powers vested to it by the Constitution. While it may be tempting to suggest possibilities, a clear simple reading of the text and knowledge of what Madison, Hamilton and Jay said/wrote would support my interpretation. If a “new” power were to be exercised then that new power would have to be approved through an amendment. That’s why they provided a means of amendment. Prohibition was provided that way and recalled in that same manner.

        • To me the line – the safe and honest meaning contemplated by the plain understanding of the people of the United States at the time of its adoption – suggests to me that he was talking about how the people understood the document as much as how particular Federalists had commented on it. It seems difficult to cleanly pull these threads apart.
          Hamilton (an committed Federalist, if there ever was one) energetically supported the creation of a Bank of the US and Jefferson fought him on it. Who was right? Hard to say.
          And the Federalists initially tended to be more supportive of broad interpretations of the Constitution, though their writings were carefully worded, during the ratification process not to scare off supporters who were worried about the overreaching power of a central government.
          By 1815 the New England Federalists at the Hartford Convention had turned around and become very strict constructionists and demanded several limiting amendments to the Constitution without the adoption of which they vaguely threatened to secede.

          • I like our discussion and I must confess that I didn’t know of the Hartford Convention of 1815. Secession from the Union by Yankees no less. Who would have thought of such a thing. I’ll have to research it.

            Jefferson was a complicated man and eventually had disagreements with no less than George Washington. His disagreement with Hamilton and the establishment of a central bank is an interesting one but probably for a different day.

            Thank you for your intelligent and reasoned discussion about our wonderful Constitution.

            I also enjoyed your article about Fredrick Douglass, slavery and the Constitution. Any discussion of it in our public square can’t be bad.

            I hope your students are aware of the great service and education you are providing.

  7. Outstanding commentary in today’s Inquirer. I do so wish that teachers learning how to teach the social sciences were first asked to read your article, then take a look at the Constitution the way you do with your kids, particularly in light of how propaganda can distort one’s view of such documents. Your students are very lucky to have you as their instructor.

  8. In spite of the disturbing sub head on this article, it really doesn’t make the case of a “dark side” of reverence for the constitution. I am not sure of Mr. Calder position at Friends Central, but I am assuming he is a history teacher. The sad thing is, Mr. Calder doesn’t completely understand the topic he is teaching. He is missing a key component of the document. It focused on LIMITED FEDERAL GOVERNMENT!

    Our founders built a simple and limited framework for a purpose, They knew that centralized control and command government was not the answer, not to the problems they faced then and not to the problems we face now that they could not have foreseen. Mr. Calder stated it in his final paragraph “It does not hold the answers to the debt crisis, global warming, health care inequities, international terrorism, or gun crimes committed by the mentally ill.” It is not the federal government’s role to solve health care inequities, it is the state’s role and the peoples role to solve their own problems. It is not the federal governments role to solve global warming. Even if it is happenig, which I highly doubt, any changes we make won’t make a bit of difference if other countries don’t follow suit, and they won’t. Those in congress over the last two or three decades have brought on the debt crisis by trying to do things the founders never intended and spending money to try to fix things outside their mandate. They obviously can’t fix their own addiction to spending. An addiction that, had they stuck to the Constitution, would never have occurred.

    Mr. Calder scoffs at Tea Party movement’s encouragement of legislators to cite specific Constitutional authority for their proposed laws, stating that legislators already spend plenty of time constitutionally contorting themselves to make connections with their legislation and the Constitution. He sites the health care law mandate as example of this. Unfortunately, the authors of the 2400 page monstrosity didn’t consult the Constitution for authority before writing the legislation, they scrambled after the bill was passed to try to find any possible justification for it in the constitution. There is a big difference!

    Mr. Calder should be teaching his students that the government that governs least governs best and that our founders above all believed this and their documents reflect a truth that is timeless.

    • I appreciate your thoughtful feedback.
      We have talked a lot in class about the complicated relationship between state and federal government.
      I agree with you that many challenges should/could be met at the state level, but it seems as though the larger scale economic and foreign policy challenges, for example, can’t really be handled that way.
      I certainly don’t control the data on global warming, so you may be right. I hope so. But it certainly seems as though we need to protect the environment in terms of keeping water sources uncontaminated, soil productive, energy extraction as clean as possible, and so on. Doing that at the state level is complicated too. Although the states do often come up with more creative and practical solutions to problems than the fed, they are all over the place.
      I have always been attracted to the idea of the least government being the best. But it seems to me that what passes for strict interpretation can just be the constitutional equivalent of filibustering.
      I like the idea that it’s better (for government) to get nothing done than to get bad things done, but at this point many of the bad things, as you rightly point out, have already been done, and I wonder whether we have to accept a certain amount of activist government to get ourselves out of the predicament we’re in.
      If there isn’t that possibility, I have a hard time seeing any light at the end of the tunnel.
      What is your take on this?

      • You are very welcome. I do enjoy reading and responding to opinion pieces and letters to the editor in the Inquirer.

        I agree with you that foreign policy, national security and international trade need to be handled on a national level with a government body acting within it’s purview and with the peoples consent. I believe the founders envisioned this and it was their intent to have the federal government pursue these ends for the states and the American people. However, things like welfare, health care, regulations on business and education should start with the local and state governments. For example, I don’t think the Fed should be regulating what foods are served in our schools and I don’t think the curriculum should be centrally controlled. Frankly, when Michele Obama says we need a nutrition bill because in her own words “we can leave it to the parents” that scares me.
        Regarding Global warming and environmental issues, of course I am for protecting our environment where ever possible. However there has to be a balance between excessive regulation that drives away business and common sense protections. Do you realize that Phillips electronics companies closed all of their light bulb plants in the US because of the move to the curtly fry light bulbs. Thousands of jobs were lost and those tax dollars they paid are now overseas. Additionally, those bulbs are not as efficient as first thought and they don’t have the life expectancy originally claimed. To top it off the light is horrible. Have you looked at the procedures necessary to dispose of one if it breaks? There is mercury in the bulbs that if put in land fills will present a pollution hazard. All for saving a few cents a year in energy cost because of claim of global warming that we don’t know for certain is even happening.

        I heard today that the EPA is planning to regulate water on the grounds that it could be causing Autism! No serious study or clinician has ever inferred that Autism is cause by drinking water. The EPA is out of control and so is our government. Over regulation is killing our economy and outlawing carbon emissions will only make it worse. China and India and other emerging economies will not be constraining themselves the way we are and we will continue to fall behind economically. They are so much larger than us than even if we reduce our emissions, theirs will dwarf our savings any way.

        I know it seems like “the Constitution” is the new conservative battle cry, but I would not say it is being used as a means for filibuster. We as American voters have simply abdicated our responsibility to put a check on our own government. It is not too late to fix it but we can continue to spend the way we have been. That is why I was so disappointed with the President’s speech last week. He kept talking about “investing” in high speed rail and education and a green economy. That is just spin for more government spending. His proposal to freeze the government spending at current levels for five years is just plain laughable. We need to start cutting across the board , not keeping the status quo.

        We allowed ourselves to get in this mess, but Americans are a smart, determined and hard working people and we can fix almost anything. It is not too late but we need courageous leaders and we need to left to come along with the right and accept the fact that the gravy train is gone and we need to make drastic changes.

        You are right, it is better for the government to do no further harm but we can’t stop there. We can right the ship but we all need to admit we have a problem first and I am not sure those in power quite get it yet. You and your students can help by calling and writing to them.

        That’s my two cents- thanks for reading this far!

  9. “But the important question isn’t whether the mandate is justified by the commerce clause. It’s whether it’s necessary to solve the problem.” So the ends justify the means. It is scary to think you are anywhere near kids.
    — bill.atkins,

    • I’m not convinced that the mandate should stand and I think the argument that the commerce clause justifies it is weak. But one could easily argue that the “necessary and proper” clause does.
      Just seems as though we should at least consider whether it’s a good idea beyond having the usual strict vs. loose interpretation of the Constitution argument.

  10. I have carefully read and reread your thought provoking article. To me, it appears your main point gets lost in your several comments about the U.S. Constitution. There are a few points on which I have a different opinion.

    I assume you either wrote or agreed with the heading and subheading. I believe “love” and “reverence” are not what most Americans have for the Constitution. “Respect”, “reliance” and “control of government” (all three branches) come to mind, but there are other terms not related to love or reverence. Likewise, “devotion” (paragraph 3) is not an appropriate word.

    There are those who believe the words of the Constitution mean exactly what they state (its writers were marvels at carefully selecting its words for their clear meaning) and may readily be changed by Amendment. Then there are those who believe in a living Constitution whose interpretation should change with the times. Whether they are right or wrong, such interpretations are the result of only a few persons (usually the Supreme Court) rather than approved by 3/4 of the legislatures/conventions. Although the founders worked hard to force balance between the executive, legislative and judicial branches, near certain the biggest flaw was the absolute strength they gave to the Supreme Court’s interpretations. By now, its writer’s probably expected the Constitution to have been Amended 100 or more times rather than be twisted by the Supreme Court as it has done since the second term of FDR.

    I agree that today Congress is even less willing than usual to consider responsible solutions. We have near totally lost compromise—actions are controlled by political parties rather than concern for the people. By not attempting controversial solutions, the representatives are acting on behalf of their political futures. It appears that this will continue until we mandate term limits.

    I disagree with your statement “…it’s not the Constitution that needs protecting.”. but I do strongly agree with the point of your next sentence (environment, etc). By twisting the intent of the Constitution, political parties are attempting to radically change the course of this country.

    Your point about the British and their small-c constitution masks the real difference between the British and the American views. Laws, statutes, legal precidents and writings do not have a basis which is supposed to hold for all time unless amended, nor can provisions be declared “unconstitutional”. I suspect most British would stand by the Magna Carta for its main purpose, regardless of what changes have occurred in England over time, but this document was not intended to be an overall controlling document. In the United States, the Constitution, from its inception, is supposed to be an all powerful document from which no other “document” can legally deviate.

    Amendments. Yes, the Constitution has been amended to do these things (you leave out the Bill of Rights, presumably because the Founding Fathers clearly agreed with those ten). Your statement, “Clearly a majority of the Founding Fathers would not have supported these changes…”, puts the Founding Fathers stuck in the time frame of the writing of the Constitution. It would have been more correct to have inserted “at the time of the Constitution”. However, even that would probably not cover the “abolish slavery”. It is pretty clear that the majority of the Founding Fathers were against slavery, but compromised to assure the approval of the Constitution by high slave holding states (one of my ancestors in NC voted against the Constitution because he felt it gave the Federal government too much power),

    “We need creative, unencumbered thinking.” Absolutely true, however, even the few cases that are creative tend to involve questionable Constitutionality. All too often because of total lack of compromise. We need many more statesmen who put good of country first.

    “We have repeatedly ignored the Constitution…” “Repeatedly” may be too strong, but you make your point. I am reasonably certain that the issue of Congress delegating its Constitutional authority to the President was never brought before the Supreme Court. Your point about the Supreme Court points out its repeated decisions which are legislative rather than judicial.

    I agree that the Constitution does not (nor was it intended to) hold answers to many problems of today. I have tried, but fail, to understand exactly what you want by your closing, “…it would help if we adopted a broader definition of constitution.” Any document (of the types you mention for the British) which has been accepted by our judicial system is legal, with the Constitution standing as the rock on which they are legal. That seems sufficient. I believe that what we need is less trying to newly interpret the Constitution such that uncompromised positions are considered legal.

    Thank you for your article. It appears your students are treading where all too few are treading today. Hopefully, one day they will appreciate that.

    Davis Reese
    Bryn Mawr

    • Sadly I have nothing to do the the title or subtitle of the pieces. I think the editorial board likes to make them more provocative than I would.
      You make lots of great points and I generally agree with you.
      I realize that Scalia and other believe that the Constitution should be amended rather than circumvented, and that makes some sense.
      “It’s not the Constitution that needs protecting…” was too strong a way to phrase it. You’re right.
      I also agree with your comment on the difference between the British and US Constitution but it seems as though the British (in the last few centuries) have been able to mostly share the same beliefs in some basic underlying principles of government, even without the benefit of a single document Constitution.
      Richard Beeman’s recent book, Plain, Honest Men I think is excellent.
      He says 25 of the delegates owned slaves, a little less than half. I assumed that there at least passive support for slavery from at least a few of the others, who by dint of family and business connections profited from the institution. At least that was my guess.
      Fascinating about your NC ancestor.
      In the closing, I was trying to make the point that a broader sense of the concept of a constitution might help to concentrate more on all of the other law, regulation, etc. that in many ways has more direct impact on our lives than the Constitution itself.
      Thanks for your input.

      • Dear Grant, nice to get your words and, especially, a more understandable version of your intent. Editorial page articles are, by design, shorter than may be appropriate for the subject being discussed. Given the detail you provided, I am sure some of your points would have been more powerful had you been able to write at length.

        As to the British and us, I am not familiar enough with Parlement to know, but I suspect one reason the British behave currently like they do is that they still have room for compromise. (My one visit to Parlement is still remembered because one of the Scot representatives detailed what Bonnie Black Charley of 300 years ago would have said.)

        As to slave supporters, I was thinking of the states, not the representatives. The 25 slave owners surprises me (by the way, my ancestor owned no slaves). Of course, some probably came from Maryland and maybe Delaware. Most of us have little understanding of the power the big slave holders had in their states and often in the U.S. House and Senate. It was they who pushed secession, which resulted in the Civil War (It is commonly stated that slavery, not secession, was the cause of this war. Lincoln, himself, publically stated that his focus was on getting the seceeded states back in the Union, further that if he could accomplish this without freeing one slave, he would take that course of action.) Thus, secession was the direct cause of the War, with slavery the underlying cause.

        Yes, there are many much needed action/laws having a direct impact on our lives. Unfortunately, Constitution or no, our representatives, state and Federal, show little inclination to do anything, especially in taking a compromising approach— no matter which party is in power.

  11. I am fuming at your opinion piece. You allege love for the Constitution, yet espouse permitting violations of its very tenants. It does not matter if it is 1787, 1887, 1987, 2087, etc. The interpretation of the Constitution should always be the same; Strict adherence. There is a means to make changes by way of amendments after, repeat after, the approval of 2/3 of the states. It was done that way so people, being what they are could not go off willy nilly with frivolous changes believing the Constitution is a living document. It is not living in the sense the Constitution is spoken of today and what many Progressives and Socialists want people to believe. They depend on the people of this country being uninformed and sadly, this is the case. As Franklin said; We have gotten the government we deserve.

    I too carry copies of the Constitution with me. I have a copy at home, at work, in my backpack, in my backpack for my graduate classes, [I am continuing my education after many years at Penn State Harrisburg]. I bought copies from the National Center for Constitutional Studies [www.nccs.net] for only .99 cents each and gave them to family, friends and co-workers. I read some of the Constitution every day. NCCS has available several books you and your students would find useful; The Making of America: The Substance and Meaning of the Constitution, The 5000 Year Leap, The Real George Washington, The Real Thomas Jefferson and The Real Benjamin Franklin. I have already read the last three. The first half of each is a biography; the second half contains quotes from all sources listed by topic.

    For the longest time I was a registered Republican. I voted in every primary and general election. It then became obvious to me that politicians, Republican or Democrat paid only lip service to the Constitution and referenced it incorrectly on purpose to suit their needs. The Republicans are taking this country in the same direction as the Democrats, only a little bit slower. A few years ago I read an article that spoke of the importance of voting. Not just voting, but voting your conscience. That caused me to take a hard look at my thinking. As a result, I changed my party affiliation to the Constitution Party [www.constitutionparty.com] located in Lancaster, PA. I found a home. I have to write in the party candidates when I vote and they do not win. But my conscience is clear. Most people believe I am just wasting my vote, but that is impossible. I do not wear my party on my sleeve, but when the discussion turns to politics, I do not hesitate to state my beliefs. I encourage others to check the Constitution Party out for them selves. It is not perfect, but it is 1000% better then any other alternative.

    You say in your opinion piece that you are “a big fan of the U.S. Constitution.” But then you say the Constitution, “might have a downside…..” Not if you interpret it the way it was intended by the Founding Fathers.

    You are definitely incorrect when you say, “our representatives seem even less willing than usual to consider responsible solutions.” I submit the only solution they ever consider is what can I do to ensure re-election. That is a sad but very true commentary. They do compete with “each other to be seen as defenders.” For the very reason I just stated.

    How can you say it is not the Constitution that needs protecting. The Constitution and the Declaration of Independence must be protected first, last and always. Protect and follow them and anything else will take care of itself.

    You speak of the British and their small-c constitution. Who cares about the British or their constitution, small-c or big-c. We in the United Sates should be comparing ourselves to ourselves. Our Constitution should not only be a big-C, but be spelled in all caps; CONSTITUTION. Given the importance it deserves. The CONSTITUTION is succinct and to the point. The Founding Fathers knew too, Keep it Simple Stupid [KISS]. As long as a single Founder was alive he used his voice and his pen to defend the concepts within the CONSTITUTION. Now that they are gone, we have their words to defend these concepts. But the only things most people in this country want to know is, “Where’s my check?, What’s in it for me?, I gotts mines!” They keep feeding whatever the Federal givmint feeds them and then demand more. They are clueless idiots. Even some of my own family members. My blood boils.

    Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia is correct when he maintain that the CONSTITUTION is a not living document. See above. Your assertion is specious as to the CONSTITUTION being a living document as you would like people, and GOD forbid, your students to believe.

    True, a majority of the Founding Father did not abolish slavery in the CONSTITUTION. But, you neglected to say that the CONSTITUTION would not have passed in 1787 with a complete abolishment of slavery, so they elected to deal with it in the future and get the CONSTUTION ratified. The Founding Fathers chose to have Senators elected by their various state legislators for a reason. Do you have any idea what that reason was? Research it and get back to me. It was never intended for the people to be empowered [pc gag] to elect both Representative and Senators. True, the Founding Fathers would not have supported the vote for women at that time.

    Unfortunately, the Tea Party movement will probably fade away over time, unless more people get informed about the CONSTITUTION. There is nothing wrong with requiring every congressional act to specify the CONSTITUTIONAL authority for it. But, close scrutiny must be given to the lying interpretations given to the commerce clause and the general welfare clause of the CONSTITUTION. They only apply to those powers enumerated in the CONSTITUTION. As I said before, politicians use them for only one reason, to get re-elected.

    The Federal government does not have CONSTITUTIONAL authority to regulate education, healthcare, set-asides, hate or gun crimes. Only those enumerated in the CONSTITUTION, PERIOD. The War Powers Act is UNCONSTITUTIONAL. Not global warming, because it does not exist. If it rains or not, it is because of global warming. If it snows or not, it is because of global warming. If it is dry or not, it is because of global warming. Forecasters cannot accurately predict the weather five days out. Yet global warming theorists are predicting dire circumstances in the year 3000. Really? Stop and think, please.

    I am not a CONSTITUTIONAL scholar by any means. However, I make every effort to get informed and share what I have learned with others. I still have a lot to learn. I ask myself a simple question, Does the CONSTITUTION APPLY? If, not stay out of the way, the issue belongs to the individual state to deal with or not.

    Sincerely,

    Joe Figueiredo
    Carlisle, PA

    • Many thanks for your thoughtful response to my piece.

      Sometimes I lean more toward strict adherence myself but it depends upon the issue at hand.
      And I admit I tend to be for strict adherence when I don’t want the Congress to pass some particular bill and I am more flexible when it comes to measures that seem to represent more constructive use of government power.
      It just seems to me as though the debates often get reduced to an argument about whether a proposed program is constitutional or not, rather than whether it’s needed and workable and doesn’t represent too much of a risk to the freedoms we enjoy.
      It’s a difficult balance.

  12. Just wanted to let you know that I read your opinion piece in the Inquirer about the constitution (as well as a number of other post on your blog), intriguing and I agree that there should be a continuum when it comes to laws. We should be holding one of the most important documents of the past in the light of today’s predicaments in order to cope with the various issues that we may be facing but that people of the past may have never anticipated.
    Dwight

  13. Letter to the editor – Phila Inquirer – Feb. 13

    The excellent article by Grant Calder on the U.S. Constitution points out that the document is several steps down from God and need not be worshiped (“Constitutional love should not be blind,” Feb. 3). It was written by a group of wise but not necessarily infallible individuals living at a time that would seem primitive to us. Even had they been able to see the future, the founders could have made mistakes. I would guess that they were no smarter than the men who developed the Ford Motor Co., but if we refused to alter the designs of the latter, we would still be riding around in Model A’s.
    Conrad J. Fowler

    Blue Bell

Comments are closed.