A newspaper editor recently wrote of the difficulty in finding a columnist expressing the constitutional viewpoint. I was impressed that he was making his way through the Federalist Papers and considered it a good read. Probably not one in 20 today can identify what it is or how it came about.
Today, the Federalist Papers would be too deep a read for most college students — even many law school pupils. But it houses the thought processes and debates behind the Constitution, the document that caged the natural tendencies of man more than any governing document in world history. An understanding of the Constitution without this resource is not possible. And because the Constitution is based upon natural law, which does not change, it applies to all generations and all societies.
Constitutional principles were once taught at every level of education and stories of the sacrifice of our Founding Fathers frequently recited with admiration. Today, few schools teach these principles in grade school and fewer still in high school. In university-level U.S. history and political science classes, the Constitution is tucked in the back of textbooks as an appendix, hence few actually read it. The history of the Constitution’s origin is housed in a chapter, but constitutional principles seemingly have only informational value.
Some colleges or universities have courses on the Constitution for political science majors, but almost without exception, students are not required to actually read it; heavy emphasis is given instead to case law. The same is true in law school. Original intent is hardly mentioned. Law schools provide most of our attorneys and our judges with too little on original intent. One rogue Supreme Court decision can effectively destroy large chunks of the Constitution, and almost no one notices or cares. Too few understand that the Supreme Court is not the supreme law of the land over the Constitution. The Founding Fathers would have never permitted nine justices to destroy foundational principles.
Sadly, I never met one having a Ph.D. in U.S. history or political science who was actually required to read the U.S. Constitution in full to get the degree. Nor have I met a lawyer having to do so either. Case law, yes — loads of it — but not the Constitution in full or natural law upon which it is based.
If colleges give no emphasis to constitutional study, how can we expect the student to do so either? Several years ago, U.S. News and World Report reported a study showing that most Americans could not pass the constitutional questionnaire for citizenship — so constitutionally illiterate are we. This document is only of minimal value to journalism or communication majors as well. But these professions serve as information filters in our newspapers, magazines, or radio or television news programs.
The media have divided citizens into two warring groups — liberals and conservatives — lumping constitutionalists and libertarians with conservatives. Traditionally, both major groups problem-solve primarily by increasing federal power without specific constitutional authority (if the document is properly understood) and pretend that there exist no other viewpoints. Rarely is original intent allowed into the debate. But the Constitution is the law of the land, and all in authority swear an oath to preserve it.
Barack Obama violated the Constitution more than any president in our history with George W. Bush coming in second. The Tea Party movement, comprising primarily constitutionalists, rose up in 2009 as much against George W. Bush, a conservative, as against incoming president Barack Obama, a liberal. It used to matter if a president did not carefully follow the Constitution. Today, both Democrats and Republicans defend their president routinely when he violates it. Donald Trump certainly is no constitutionalist, although thus far he has followed it more closely than any previous president the last 28 years.
Of the two major political parties, the Democrats rarely cite the document and almost seem to have contempt for it. In fact, most of what they propose is easily argued to be outside the Constitution. They used to defend major parts of the Bill of Rights, but I do not see much of that anymore. Republicans sometimes carry the document on their person but do not hold to it, and thus much of what they propose is also outside of the Constitution. But they do use the word “Constitution” more than do Democrats, if that means much.
This generation knows that the Constitution was a good thing and probably should be revered, at least historically, but they know little of the principles housed therein and have no idea how to vote to get back to it. This they will never get from the media, political parties, or seemingly not even the institutions of learning — only private study. That my new editor would find it difficult to find columnists that express the constitutional viewpoint is easily understood, as is the fact that newer columnists, lacking this understanding, are far more likely to express views in opposition to it.
Constitutional illiteracy is almost universal to the point that those qualified to defend the Constitution as designed are becoming extinct. Students are not likely to defend it if they never experienced it being defended. A real danger exists that if too few know or value its principles, we will lose it — and perhaps we already have. Some say it is no longer relevant for our times.
They are so wrong.
Articles related to “Does the Constitution matter anymore?”
The viewpoints expressed above do not necessarily reflect those of The Independent.
How to submit an article, guest opinion piece, or letter to the editor to The Independent
Do you have something to say? Want your voice to be heard by thousands of readers? Send The Independent your letter to the editor or guest opinion piece. All submissions will be considered for publication by our editorial staff. If your letter or editorial is accepted, it will run on suindependent.com, and we’ll promote it through all of our social media channels. We may even decide to include it in our monthly print edition. Just follow our simple submission guidelines and make your voice heard:
—Submissions should be between 300 and 1,500 words.
—Submissions must be sent to firstname.lastname@example.org as a .doc, .docx, .txt, or .rtf file.
—The subject line of the email containing your submission should read “Letter to the editor.”
—Attach your name to both the email and the document file (we don’t run anonymous letters).
—If you have a photo or image you’d like us to use and it’s in .jpg format, at least 1200 X 754 pixels large, and your intellectual property (you own the copyright), feel free to attach it as well, though we reserve the right to choose a different image.
—If you are on Twitter and would like a shout-out when your piece or letter is published, include that in your correspondence and we’ll give you a mention at the time of publication.