Fifty-seven years ago, I raised my right hand and swore to "defend the Constitution of the United States....against all enemies, foreign and domestic."
I was seventeen years old. I had actually read the Constitution before I took that oath. Not only that, when I asked my high school civics teacher, Mr. Mowery, about the Federalist Papers, he lent me his copy and I read that as well. So I already knew of many flaws in the original Constitution. I knew that the Bill of Rights, intended to correct some of the flaws, had been opposed by the Federalists.
By the time I took the oath again almost four years later, I had studied Constitutional Law and learned that it isn't enough to read the Constitution and marvel at the eloquent language. One must pore through nearly two centuries worth of opinions by the Supreme Court of the United States. What the Constitution means in a particular case may not be immediately obvious to the casual observer. Nor, often, do the justices completely agree.
The idea that our elected representatives in the U.S. Congress might be so unschooled in our Constitution that they need to have it read to them, struck me as ludicrous. Possibly harmless, but still absurd. Shouldn't they have read it before taking their oath?
I have now taken that oath, or some variation of it, nine times. I have also read more widely in American History and reflected more deeply on the strengths of the Constitution.
It seems apparent that our founding fathers were deeply divided along regional cultural lines. New England Puritans, Pennsylvania Quakers, Cavaliers of Virginia, Maryland and the Carolinas and Scotch Irish of the uplands despised each other.
The Constitution was negotiated to establish rules of engagement by which to manage the inevitable conflicts of interest and attitude that the colonists had brought with them from the old country as well as some new conflicts developed here.
Key to these rules of conflict management has been the use of the ballot rather than bullets to determine policy.
It hasn't always worked that way, but it is our job to do our best to resolve conflicts peaceably, not violently.
That's what the Constitution is about.
Saturday, January 8, 2011
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Don't we have a political party asserting that we may have to use "2nd amendment remedies" and espousing succession?
Post a Comment