Political pundits in this country fall into a couple camps as a rule. There are the strict constructionists, who believe the constitution must be adhered to without variance. It is a document put together by some of the greatest intellects in history and we shouldn’t be ‘amessin’ with it. Then there are those who, while revering the constitution believe it is a document that sets out guidelines for democracy but must grow to reflect changing times. The former are usually conservatives and the later of a more liberal bent. And then there are those who don’t pay a lick of bit of attention to the constitution and just consider what they want right now. The last group can claim to be from either of the aforementioned groups, but generally just know have much knowledge or interest it the constitution aside from being a sounding board for the particular likes or dislikes.
As one who is basically a theolog, I see this discussion very similar in nature between those Christians who see the Bible through fundamentalist eyes (it was written by God through human hands and is inerrant, literally true in all parts) and those who see it as an inspired documents whose principles are to be followed, and then another group who think it’s a good book along with many other good books we should learn from.
To be clear where I come from in both camps I will tell you my presuppositions up front. Biblically I am what is called neo-orthodox: meaning I believe the Bible is a God inspired book that gives us the principles we need in order to live as responsible citizens in God’s kingdom, now and in eternity. I hold the same view on the constitution. It is an amazing document whose principles are and should being the guidelines for how government should operate. But as scripture, which I believe is a dynamic book, with God acting upon its readers today as God acted upon its many writers not a static bit of laws that don’t account for the change in times.
It seems clear to me, that as brilliant and the founding fathers were, they could in no way envision how out country would develop into the superpower it is today with a popular and size it now encompasses. For example, the second amendment to bear arms was important to folk who needed muskets so if the Brits came at them again, they could assemble quickly and put down uprisings. Plus, guns are handy for killing game so you can eat. So, if you think you need a musket, I have no problem with that. But for an individual to own automatic or semi-automatic weapons or even bazookas, that’s is just plain whacko; if you need that type of armament you to shoot game you are not much of a sportsman. The Republic, our national government is charged with our protection and they have plenty of guns. If you don’t trust them, I believe that makes you to likely be an anarchist. The founding fathers knew full well the importance of trust for a Republic to remain strong.
The process of amendments and the Bill of Rights the founding fathers created seems to me to have foreseen the need of future adaptation with the changing times. I as amazing to see how far into the future James Madison did see in terms of population changes and increasing the size of the Republic.
We live in a world that has very little private information left. We may lament it, especially those who feel they have something to hide; but it is the way it is. We need to protect that information as best we can so it cannot be used for ill. But we are not likely to give up our computers, I-phones and the like either. Our laws much continually change in order to keep up with the changes of the times. And it doing so, we can and should still adhere to the principles of the constitution. But it is not a dead document anymore than the Bible is. We should not worship neither, that is idolatrous in both cases, but with should understand and follow their principles.
The big problem is as a people we are both biblically and constitutionally illiterate. And that is neither good for the church or the country.
Footnote: We need to be careful in our labels of politicians of the past, you can’t trust them to be consistent.. For example, James Madison was a Republican. The alternative was being a Federalist. Republicans then were the liberals and Federalists were the conservatives. Everybody wants to claim Abraham Lincoln, also a Republican. But the man was clearly a liberal in thought and deed; solution: let everyone claim him, he was a good guy. Know your history. These two examples, Madison and Lincoln both did not believe in slavery, but both did not come out against slavery until they stood a possible chance of ending it. They compromised. For Madison it never happened, for Lincoln it was a bit more dramatic. All in all, who cares, what we need is statesmen of any party who are not blown about by opinion polls and do what it takes to get elected, but people of integrity and values who state them believe them and support them because they believe they are best for the country. A re-reading of Kennedy’s, “Profiles in Courage” is good for politicians and those who vote for them.
IMHO 'strict constructionism', like its twin sister Biblical literalism, are both examples of what I would call 'lazy thinking'. It's for people who don't to consider nuance, context, or interpretation: they just want someone to give them the answer.
ReplyDeleteOur pride in the Constitution and our history also often tempts us to ascribe supernatural levels of infallibility upon the founding fathers: wise men to be sure, but they were not gods or prescient beings - which is why they made the Constitution amendable to begin with.