We Are Revolutionaries
by
Charley
Reese
by Charley Reese
It
would be a hopeful sign if the Senate could get away from its obsession
with abortion on demand and consider, during its Supreme Court confirmation
hearings, what the Constitution is and what it isn't.
Some people seem to be under the erroneous belief that the Constitution
grants us our rights. It does no such thing. To understand the Constitution,
you have to remember the Declaration of Independence, which preceded
it by several years. It is the Declaration that contains the philosophy
of the American Revolution. The Constitution merely implements that
philosophy.
The philosophy of the American Revolution contains three basic premises.
One is that rights come from God and are unalienable. Two is that
men create governments to protect those rights. Three is that when
government fails to protect those rights and becomes abusive of
those rights, men have a right and even a duty to overthrow that
government and create a new one.
Some Americans have so neglected their study of American history
that the idea of violently overthrowing a government strikes them
as, well, communist or some such. Of course, if the Founding Fathers
had not violently overthrown the colonial government of Great Britain
in North America, we would not be an independent nation.
If you read the Constitution with those three premises in mind (and
both documents were written to be read by ordinary folks, not legal
scholars), it makes perfect sense. The main part of the Constitution
simply establishes the framework for the federal government and
its three parts, defines their respective duties and establishes
what the federal government can do and what the states can do. None
of that has anything at all to do with individual rights or with
social issues.
The Bill of Rights, which is a set of amendments added after ratification
to reassure opponents of the Constitution that the new government
would not usurp their rights, simply forbids the new federal government
from abusing or abridging already-existing rights. The right to
free speech and all the others existed prior to the Constitution
and the Bill of Rights. The language of the First Amendment tells
what the intent was: "Congress shall pass no law." Only
the new federal government had a Congress.
The Second Amendment does not grant people the right to keep and
bear arms. They already had and continue to have that right. It
simply says the already-existing right cannot be abridged. You can't
abridge something that doesn't exist. Remember, too, that the same
people involved in the Constitution were involved in the Revolution.
Obviously, if you believe people have a right to overthrow a government,
then no government must be allowed to disarm them.
It is also good to keep in mind that the Constitution is a textual
document, not a "living document." That was a false metaphor
intended to provide cover for judges to legislate and amend by interpretation
so that the Constitution would mean whatever they said it meant.
Not so. It means what it says. It cannot be amended by interpretation
or by Congress ignoring it, though modern politicians have committed
both sins.
The Constitution is a written contract between the sovereign people
and their government. It was ratified by the people, and only the
people can change it through the amendment process. Every single
American, liberal or conservative, should be fiercely adamant on
that point. Otherwise, we have a nation of men, not of laws.
Finally, keep in mind that the Constitution was never intended to
deal with moral and philosophical issues, such as abortion. The
Founding Fathers properly left those to elected legislatures. That's
why Roe v. Wade is a profoundly flawed decision. The court usurped
the powers of the 50 state legislatures and, by interpretation,
created a right to privacy that the words of the Constitution do
not support.
It
is said that when the Constitutional Convention ended, a lady asked
Benjamin Franklin what kind of government they had given the people.
"Madam, we have given you a republic if you can keep
it," was the reply. That is still an open question. If Americans
continue to allow lawyers and academics to tell them what is so
and not so, instead of thinking for themselves, then most surely
we won't keep it.
September
19, 2005
Charley
Reese [send
him mail] has been a journalist for 49 years.
©
2005 by King Features Syndicate, Inc.
Charley
Reese Archives
|