Do Democrats now oppose the Constitution?
By now, Beto O’Rourke’s unflattering comment referencing the Constitution, “Does this still work?” is old news. He was suggesting that government is now too complicated for it to deal with 21st Century problems. What isn’t old news is that there was no backlash from the Democratic Party or the media regarding this ill-informed comment, nor was there pressure on O’Rourke to end his intended run for president because of it. Such would have ended the run of any contender 20 years ago. Do Democrats now oppose the Constitution?
Neither major political party has followed the Constitution, as first consideration, in more than 50 years. Of the two, Democrats rarely cite the document and seem almost contemptuous of it. In fact, most of what they propose is easily argued to be outside the Constitution. They once defended parts of the Bill of Rights, but I no longer see much of this. Republicans sometimes carry the document on their person but do not hold to it, and thus much of what they propose is also outside the Constitution.
Constitutional ignorance is prevalent. Have we reached a day when a major political party is openly against it? President Barack Obama came close when he told the United Nations General Assembly on Sept. 24, 2014, referencing the U.S. Constitution, “On issue after issue, we cannot rely on a rulebook written for a different century.”
The obvious dig shows a definite lack of respect for the Constitution that he swore by oath to “preserve, protect and defend” (Article 11, Section 1), but Democrats did not wish to rebuke or confine their president. Still, Obama’s phrase was a mockery of the Constitution and should have been unacceptable to every American, whether said by a Republican or a Democrat. Ironically, the Constitution is designed to constrain presidents like him, just like his predecessor George W. Bush and his successor Donald Trump, but it will never work if the party in power runs interference for its own constitutional abuser as also has happened for over 50 years.
It also shows a lack of understanding of the Constitution (whether ignorantly or intentionally), which is based upon time-tested human nature and natural law, which do not change from century to century. Man and governments are still beset by the same sins as expressed in all ages. There will always be those who wish to rule over others. Government will always attempt to grow its power at the expense of the people. There will always need to be a list of the things governments can do, and they will always need to be constrained to that list. There will always need to be division of power and checks on each branch of government, and presidents will always, as James Madison said, “have a propensity for war” and wish to use military power without consent. And there will always be those who wish to use the force of government to redistribute the wealth so that they can in effect purchase elections by “gifting” voters.
The magic of the Constitution is that as designed, it does not distribute benefits or preferences to anyone. These are the reasons why it is said to be outdated by those who wish to take from us our liberties. Lawmakers who have problems with the Constitution do not wish to be restricted in their governance of us, and thus they belittle it and seek to convince us to give them more power in another one. Thus the ignorant comments regarding it by O’Rourke.
One of my favorite college courses to instruct was on contemporary political topics. Students were given a copy of the Constitution and required to problem solve with it and natural law rather than political party or philosophical persuasion. This base is justified because every politician has sworn to “protect, preserve and defend” this document. It is the instrument by which everything should be judged. The students loved it. Amazingly, from food stamps to climate change, we never found an issue that the Constitution did not address. Century, language, and culture were irrelevant, because human nature remains the same.
The “rule book written in a different century” is still as reliable as before. What we need today are presidents, legislators, and judges who know its limitations, and love and interpret it as written. In this quest, we are embarrassingly in short supply. Why?
Constitutional principles were once taught at every level of education and stories of the sacrifice of our founders frequently recited with admiration. Today, few schools teach these principles in grade school, and fewer still in high school. In college, the Constitution is tucked in the back of textbooks as an appendix in U.S. history and political science courses; hence, very few actually read it. The history of the Constitution’s origin is housed in a chapter, but constitutional principles seemingly have only informational value.
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 have never experienced it being defended. A real danger exists that if too few know or value its principles, we will lose it — perhaps we already have. Some, like O’Rourke, say it is no longer relevant for our times. They couldn’t be more ill informed.
The viewpoints expressed above are those of the author and 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 editor@infowest.com 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.
Articles related to “Do Democrats now oppose the Constitution?”
Birth tourism is unconstitutional and should be ended by executive order
