Posted 11:56 pm Friday, February 10, 2012
The U.S. Constitution Timeless, Not Trendy
Is the U.S. Constitution out of date?
It would seem so, according to at least one Supreme Court justice and the New York Times’ top Supreme Court reporter.
In an interview in Egypt last week, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said “I would not look to the United States Constitution if I were drafting a constitution in the year 2012.”
Instead, she would refer to the “South African Constitution, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms or the European Convention on Human Rights.”
The Times took another shot at the Constitution on Monday, in a commentary piece titled “‘We the People’ Loses Appeal With People Around the World,” by Adam Liptak.
It would seem so, according to at least one Supreme Court justice and the New York Times’ top Supreme Court reporter.
In an interview in Egypt last week, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said “I would not look to the United States Constitution if I were drafting a constitution in the year 2012.”
Instead, she would refer to the “South African Constitution, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms or the European Convention on Human Rights.”
The Times took another shot at the Constitution on Monday, in a commentary piece titled “‘We the People’ Loses Appeal With People Around the World,” by Adam Liptak.
“The Constitution has seen better days,” he wrote. “Sure, it is the nation’s founding document and sacred text. And it is the oldest written national constitution still in force anywhere in the world. But its influence is waning.”
Why?
“There are lots of possible reasons,” Liptak reasons. “The United States Constitution is terse and old, and it guarantees relatively few rights. The commitment of some members of the Supreme Court to interpreting the Constitution according to its original meaning in the 18th century may send the signal that it is of little current use to, say, a new African nation. And the Constitution’s waning influence may be part of a general decline in American power and prestige.”
Worse, “The rights guaranteed by the American Constitution are parsimonious by international standards, and they are frozen in amber,” he writes, and adds that it fails to guarantee the “entitlement to food, education and health care.”
Why?
“There are lots of possible reasons,” Liptak reasons. “The United States Constitution is terse and old, and it guarantees relatively few rights. The commitment of some members of the Supreme Court to interpreting the Constitution according to its original meaning in the 18th century may send the signal that it is of little current use to, say, a new African nation. And the Constitution’s waning influence may be part of a general decline in American power and prestige.”
Worse, “The rights guaranteed by the American Constitution are parsimonious by international standards, and they are frozen in amber,” he writes, and adds that it fails to guarantee the “entitlement to food, education and health care.”
What Justice Ginsburg and the Times’ Liptak fail to understand is that parsimoniousness is the point. The U.S. Constitution was intended to be a loose outline, and a limitation on government — not a list of benefits citizens would receive.
“It’s true that our Framers, unlike many others, especially more recently, did not focus their attention on rights,” explains Roger Pilon of the Cato Institute. “Instead, they focused on powers — and for good reason. Because we have an infinite number of rights, depending on how they’re defined, the Framers knew that they couldn’t possibly enumerate all of them. But they could enumerate the government’s powers, which they did. Thus, given that they wanted to create a limited government, leaving most of life to be lived freely in the private sector rather than through public programs of the kind we have today, the theory of the Constitution was simple and straightforward: where there is no power there is a right, belonging either to the states or to the people.”
Why is that so hard to understand?
It’s because of our modern way of thinking, which emphasizes a “what’s in it for me” mindset.
“The modern view, which we too have followed, at least statutorily if not constitutionally, is to recognize all manner of ‘entitlements’ of a kind that can be provided only through massive governmental institutions that engage in material and regulatory redistribution,” Pilon explains.
“We are constitutionally out of step in that, to be sure. Countries like Greece, Italy, Spain, and Portugal are far ahead of us.”
Just watch; the U.S. Constitution, rusty and parsimonious and terse, will outlast the current governments of those countries — for precisely those reasons.
“It’s true that our Framers, unlike many others, especially more recently, did not focus their attention on rights,” explains Roger Pilon of the Cato Institute. “Instead, they focused on powers — and for good reason. Because we have an infinite number of rights, depending on how they’re defined, the Framers knew that they couldn’t possibly enumerate all of them. But they could enumerate the government’s powers, which they did. Thus, given that they wanted to create a limited government, leaving most of life to be lived freely in the private sector rather than through public programs of the kind we have today, the theory of the Constitution was simple and straightforward: where there is no power there is a right, belonging either to the states or to the people.”
Why is that so hard to understand?
It’s because of our modern way of thinking, which emphasizes a “what’s in it for me” mindset.
“The modern view, which we too have followed, at least statutorily if not constitutionally, is to recognize all manner of ‘entitlements’ of a kind that can be provided only through massive governmental institutions that engage in material and regulatory redistribution,” Pilon explains.
“We are constitutionally out of step in that, to be sure. Countries like Greece, Italy, Spain, and Portugal are far ahead of us.”
Just watch; the U.S. Constitution, rusty and parsimonious and terse, will outlast the current governments of those countries — for precisely those reasons.
