Has the Constitution Fulfilled Its Promise?

During the school year Mr. D., my US Government teacher, began a discussion about the Constitution. After asking what the purpose of the Constitution was, as stated in the preamble, he fielded the question: "Has it lived up to its promise?"

Had I not been there he likely would've proceeded to point out all the ways the Constitution has failed to establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, promote the general welfare, etc. etc. However, there were a few points that he (perhaps intentionally) left out of his lesson plan.

The main problem with his assumptions is that the Constitution never promised a life free of problems, nor was it expected -- or even intended -- to establish a permanent condition, but rather a point of reversion. Another issue is that the Constitution hasn't exactly been followed to a T in every instance.

The republican, capitalistic system that was instituted in 1788, in divergence with certain "failed" systems of the world -- to borrow a word from our immaculate president, -- does not claim or endeavor to manufacture a life completely void of discomfort, challenges, or temporary setbacks. Expectations of this magnitude will never be met. As Chief Justice Warren Burger explained, "The Constitution does not provide a cure for every social ill," which means that some problems are meant to be solved by private organizations, groups, and -- dare I say it -- even the individuals themselves. It's important to remember that there is a time and a place for government, but that it isn't the lifeblood of the nation.

What the Constitution does promise is a society which enables the highest degree of personal freedom possible, while restraining those who would do us harm or keep us from enjoying this freedom. It strives to ensure that our leaders remain the servants, not the rulers of the people. It does away with the threat of words like monarchy and despotism by protecting against a long train of government abuses. The Constitution seeks to place government in a small enclosure, impeding seizures of unreasonable power and laying out the mechanism for their arrest and reversal. It is the means to what was written about in its prequel, the Declaration of Independence: "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."

Each of the Constitution’s divinely inspired articles takes into consideration the inescapable reality of man's weakness. Their authors did not flatter themselves into thinking they possessed sufficient wisdom to reverse human nature, but recognized that government officials would only refuse prodigious power for so long. They had greater faith in the principles of the Constitution. So much so that they provided a way for it to be restored in its purity once the collective conscience of the American People called for action against the eventual attrition of their rights.

Thomas Jefferson documented this design in a letter to an American diplomat to London. "The tree of liberty,” wrote he "must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants." This incidentally is why our right to keep and bear arms was listed in the Bill of Rights. Therefore, we can see that the Constitution was not, upon one installation, intended to withstand an eternity of abrasion by overambitious politicians. It would need to be reinstated from time to time. In fact, Thomas Jefferson believed the condition of the government would merit a rebellion about every 20 years!

When someone suggests that something is ineffectual because it begins to experience a few problems after lasting 11 times -- 201 years -- longer than it was supposed to last, it is so laughably illogical that it can only be seen as pathetic. Well within its first century of existence our Constitution was proven to be superior to any collection of laws or political doctrines to have been written before or since. How can we point to a few unemployed or homeless people, a few medically uninsured individuals, or a few foreclosures and decide to throw out this miracle of achievement? How can full centuries of unsurpassed prosperity be ignored, and at the height of existence, be counted as naught over the petty misfortunes of a decade or two?

Would I argue that significant injury can not occur at the hand of a government professing heritage from the Constitution? No I wouldn't. But before we blame God for the crime of a Christian, let's discover how closely the Constitution is actually being followed.

The third article of our supreme law discloses the form and function of the Judicial Branch. It spells out clearly the jurisdiction of the court, yet it contains no mention of the phrase "Judicial Review," nor any semblance of what has become its definition. Thomas Jefferson opposed the notion of nine men deciding what is and isn't constitutional, calling it "a very dangerous doctrine indeed." Throughout the course of its existence the Supreme Court has seen hundreds of cases, and almost every one has ended in judicial review. The majority of rulings has enabled the growth of government and has sanctioned most controversial measures. If you don't know by now, future posts will enlighten you that this secures only one thing, and it isn't general welfare or the blessings of liberty.

The Constitution has also been violated in other ways. For example, Article II of the Constitution lays out the powers of the presidential administration. The second section states that the president, "shall nominate... and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and... all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments... shall be established by Law." Meaning that "Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers," and that the president can only then nominate an appointee. In direct defiance to this provision, presidents have been and are creating new officers called Czars, and doing so on their own accord. The Senate is in no way involved with their appointment and any appropriations made by Congress can be redirected to areas of the Czars' discretion. Roosevelt's steel and agriculture foremen took control of the industries and subsequently drove the country deeper into the depression. Currently, President Obama employs a small army of Czars. What untold dangers await us now?

There have been other, smaller breaches as well. The federal branches have gradually stepped out of their bounds, to begin interfering in the spheres of the others. Every state’s role has been diminished and states' rights have been nationalized. Congress has failed to account for much of their funds in the constitutionally required Statement and Account of Receipts and Expenditures. Each of these departures do cause feasible problems, but we can't hold the Constitution responsible because it's what was departed from.

Good old Mr. D. was doubtless trying to disparage the Constitution while appearing to look objective. It was his purpose to plant a seed just below the surface of his students' consciousness; one that would undermine in our minds the legitimacy of what has always defined and distinguished America. I'm happy to say that I did my best to throw his aim and that he missed his mark.

I did it by bringing to everyone's attention that the Constitution was proven overly successful. It exceeded all expectations of effectiveness by enduring two centuries without a single government led coup and with only one major rebellion. I clarified that this document kept its promises by giving us a free and equal environment, and that if we want to succeed in our pursuit of happiness, it's up to us to meet it halfway. As for the few valid problems which are neither the result of personal judgment nor simply unavoidable facts of life, I can say this. These circumstances cannot be used to condemn the Constitution because they are not effected by the Constitution, but by instances of failure to adhere to it. They do not implicate, as my teacher so subtly insinuated, that America's founding text is inadequate and warrants replacement or fundamental alteration. To the contrary, if anything is to be done, it is not to discard the Constitution, but to align ourselves more closely with it; to reconcile our incongruence to this eternally relevant pearl of wisdom and freedom.

Has the Constitution fulfilled its promise you ask? Yes, and wonders more besides.