The Rock That is the Constitution

What a 220-year-old piece of paper knows, and why it is our best friend.

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form…”

To understand the Constitution, we need to understand why it was written. The Founding Fathers were not dumb. In fact, they were, by far, some of the most intelligent men of their time—they knew that change was not only a necessity, but also an inevitability. The Declaration of Independence says that we have certain rights. These rights are not privileges; they are guarantees. Everyone has them, and if they don’t, that is a big problem. But what exactly are these rights? And when they are infringed upon, what must be done, and by whom? These questions—and their answers—are the central tenets that our country rests on.

The Constitution is the law of the land, a set of rules by which the government and the people must follow. The Constitution is also the list of rights that the Declaration makes mention to. In fact, the original document entails amendments one through ten, known as the Bill of Rights.

Every state in the Union must ratify the Constitution, meaning they must agree to the proposals it makes. Each state must recognize the rights that are guaranteed to every American citizen under the document, and must do everything within its power to protect those rights.

What is the purpose of our government? To guarantee that our rights as American citizens are not infringed upon by any party at any time for any reason. That is the duty that each state swears to when they join the Union, and that is the duty of the federal government.

Now that we understand it a little better, let us look at the issues raised by my esteemed colleague, and I will quote them and address them an order that I see fit.

“When it does what you want, it's swell. When it doesn't people conjure up "Baaah, what does a 220-odd year old piece of paper know." Frankly, I am tired of the constitution.”

What is so vital to survival that would necessitate a violation of another person’s rights? Quite frankly, I hold my rights very dearly, and I would be very upset if they were deemed inconsequential and then promptly overstepped.

“The constitution was written by a man who expected that the image of America would be a bunch of small farms spread over a bunch of land for hundreds of years, and would prosper as a peaceful nation.”

The Constitution was written to enumerate the rights that the people expected to be protected by the law. The three branches of government are the mechanism of that defense, your rake, so to speak. The document itself is like the blueprint of the rake, and directions on where/how to use it. It tells us which end to use, that we shouldn’t rake the ceiling, and how to care for it. That was the image the Founding Fathers had, a functional and flexible government, ready and willing to morph as the people grew. They were fully aware of the rapidity of change over time. Furthermore, the mere existence of the elastic clause is solid proof that they understood the flow of time and advancement, and the 17 additional amendments display vividly that it is a feasible option to modify the document as needed.

The problem with our government is not the principals it was founded upon; it is the government machine itself. The bureaucracy becomes more corrupt and piggish as the citizenry becomes more ignorant and lazy (in regards to civic duty.) Being a politician used to be an honorable occupation; the people looked up to the men who fought for them in the federal government. Now, the best way to gain political prowess is to be a lowly bootlicker. How embarrassing! The strength and backbone of our leaders has all but disappeared. Now they play race politics, begging and stealing votes, and making decisions based on how popular they are, not if they are the right decision. Granted, this is a democracy, so popularity is the name of the game, but I’m sure the people have begun getting tired of the nonsense—I know I am—but lack the courage to make a change. Change is a scary thing.

Wire-tapping.
What’s mine is mine, and my privacy is very important to me. To suggest that it’s OK to invade someone’s privacy is one-step closer to warrant-less searches of home and property. "If you have nothing to hide, then it can't hurt you;” “If you don’t let us search your house, it’ll make you look guilty;” the typical lame copouts. You know who else used them? Witch-hunters. And McCarthy. Next step: Big Brother!

The instant the government has the power to invade a person’s privacy without probable cause is the instant that our system of government and our country becomes a traitor to its own people.

But the issue here is not if people care, for they certainly do; the issue is that the executive branch overstepped their constitutional authority in covertly wiretapping people. There are procedures laid down for a reason, they’re called checks and balances for a reason, and I’m sure we can all appreciate that reason.

Don’t know what it is? It’s to prevent the inevitable breakdown into tyranny. Tyranny is a thing to despise. If one man, or a small group of men, controls the entire government, who’s to stop them from committing any atrocity they please? The purpose of a democracy is to draw from the collective intelligence pool to choose the best courses of action possible, and to keep the interests of the people in mind when making policy. What we have today is a failure of our system of government to uphold the ideals of the people, not a failure of ideals.

The Fight Against the Constitution.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

Ahhh, everyone's favorite piece of paper. If a teenager were to put one of those "98% of teenagers have _______" and wanted it to be true, then I would suggest putting in "98% of teenagers have no idea what the constitution actually says."

I will be the first to admit that I also have very little idea what the constitution says. I know a few random amendments, and I can be real wise-crack and say "I plead the fifth" all the time, I can regurgitate the basic idea of most of the first 10 amendments, but do we really know what those mean anyway? The constituion is everyone's friend and enemy. When it does what you want, it's swell. When it doesn't people conjure up "Baaah, what does a 220-odd year old piece of paper know." Frankly, I am tired of the constitution. The constituion was written by a man who excpected that the image of America would be a bunch of small farms spread over a bunch of land for hundreds of years, and would prosper as a peaceful nation. Boy, oh boy, the times and circumstances change, but for some reason the constitution does not? My rake broke last year during some intense rakage, and I had a few options to ponder. I proposed the ideas to myself in my head, I could tape the rake with some handy-dandy duct tape, I could use half a rake, or I could go to the store and buy a new rake. While it may be a stretch in context, the basic premise still applies, the constituion is like my rake. America has transformed into a massive world superpower, full of thriving metropolii, and 300 million people (as of this coming fall), America had made it's name not by peaceful diplomacy while still maintaining our farming ways, no we forged our own destiny out of the ashes of World War II. The war ignited the industrial, and technological prowess of the present United States. So clearly the circumstances have changed, so back to the rake, do I just tape up the constituion with some bangin' new amendments!!?? Should we just wing it, if something strange comes up? Or should we go the store (congress, or even the people *shudder*) and whip up a new document that protect the people and deal with all the issues of the day, perhaps enact a new system where a new document is formed every 10-20 years? Make it like the census, get the most educated people to form a new document, and during the next presidential election, have the people vote on it and pass it by a 66% or even 75% majority. Which based on the arguing that went on during the ratification of the present constitution, would be overwhelming.

The process is an entirely different topic in itself which I will not address at this time, but the underlying point remains. The constitution is old, and a new one with more clarification on present day issues be enacted. I realize I am trying to address many issues at once, but it all boils down to, I think the average person is a complete and udder idiot, and only thinks in their own self-interest, and poorly at that. I'll just move into examples.

Warrantless wire-tapping, may or may not violate the fourth amendment, but in my opinion it is necessary. People just can't seem to ever get the "If you have nothing to hide, and it can't hurt you" idea and in only thinking about themselves refuse to think of the benefits. "What, oh my god, the government knows who I called?" Time for the press to abuse the first amendment and shit all over everything. Bottom line, it CANNOT hurt upstanding Americans, it CAN save American lives through the interception of terrorists, or general cronies.

Censorship, now I'm sure most people will disagree with me here, and refuse to listen to reason. While actions speaker louder than words, the anithesis is, the pen is mightier than the sword. They're opposites, but what can I say they're both true in different instances. World War I Propaganda slogan : "Loose lips sink ships" Words are effortless to say, but words end lives, American lives, Iraqi lives, British Lives, and terrorist lives. Now it is easy to save some allied lives, while ending some terrorist lives, through censorship. I don't mean hardcore russian-we-are-the-ownage-and-I-will-kill-your-family censorship. I mean avoiding stories such as:

"THE young Iraqi woman was in the wrong place at the wrong time — in an insurgent-riddled town when a group of American soldiers happened to pass by on patrol, noticing her.

Then, says a US official, the soldiers returned to rape her and, in an apparent cover-up attempt, she and three members of her family were killed and her body set on fire." Source

It happened, and I am disgusted by the conduct of our soldiers. We think "How can they do such things" we are knowledgeable, we are informed. An Iraqi citizen wakes up in the morning, reads the same article, the Iraqi citizen is knowledgeable, the iraqi is informed, the iraqi is pissed, not at just 5 soldiers, at 135,000 American soldiers in Iraq, at 80,000 British troops in Iraq, at 300,000,000 people in the United States. The man may get over it, the man may strap himself with explosives and kill 31 people. Ignorance is bliss. Uphold the morals of the United States, a secret military tribunal does the same amount of punishment, but does not risk killing anyone. The same goes for the Haditha "massacre", the work of a few ends up punishing hundreds of thousands of people.

How can a document from 1783 be our end-all document? It is asanine that we do not significantly modify on a regular basis. There is no way the circumstances in 1783, can encompass the circumstances in 2006. There were no illegal immigrants, there was extensive technology, they did not possess weapons that could end a million lives in the blink of an eye.

It's time for a change.