Constitution was intended to protect citizens from harmful change
Published in The Tennessean, March 21, 2010
Constitution was intended to protect citizens from harmful change
by Richard J. Grant
The exceptional nature of the United States in world history is a reflection of the values and conservatism (in the sense of caution, not ideology) that were embedded by the framers in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. The intent, and for much of US history the result, was to protect Americans from a constitutional anarchy in which an individual's liberty is largely dependent on the arbitrary (and sometimes ephemeral) preferences of rulers, politicians, or even a voting majority.
In the Federalist No. 51, James Madison offered an explanation of the reasons for, and methods by which the Constitution would partition power and place the several constituent parts of the government in relation to each other such that they would be most likely to keep each other "in their proper places." Madison clearly states that the importance of this separation and relative independence of powers is found in the recognition that they are "essential to the preservation of liberty." The goal was the preservation of liberty for each individual in the United States.
The means of this preservation was devised in recognition of human nature. Americans, and particularly elected representatives, were to be set in constitutional relation to one another such that, "Ambition must be made to counteract ambition."
This was realism. The framers recognized that whatever idealism held the hearts of those who forged the new republic, not to mention those who merely acquiesced in the outcome, self-restraint would eventually yield to the instrumentalism of self-indulgence. The intentional alignment of the "interest of the man" with the "constitutional rights of the place" was recognized as a device "necessary to control the abuses of government."
The prescience of the framers, as embodied in their product, has been at war with human nature ever since. The framers’ fears are personified by those who exhibit the anti-constitutional mentality, that is, by those who see the Constitution as an obstacle to be circumvented rather than as a protector and moderator to be mutually embraced.
The ongoing clash of mentalities is well illustrated by recent maneuvers in Washington, DC. An attempt to bring sweeping changes to the regulation and provision of medical care has been met by an opposed array of institutions and interests, all of which were essentially predicted by Madison and the other framers.
In addition to the obvious separation of the branches of government, Madison also recognized the importance of "comprehending in the society so many separate descriptions of citizen as will render an unjust combination of the majority of the whole very improbable, if not impracticable." The Constitution was deliberately designed to divide and moderate the will of factions.
We see this today in the frustration of the faction that controls the executive branch and both houses of Congress. The constitutional role of the people, of individual citizens, is demonstrated in their influence on their representatives and the manner in which that serves to fragment the majority party.
The Constitution is designed to protect us from imposed change. It is one thing for individuals and their voluntary associations to experiment in their private activities and lifestyles. Others might learn from their successes and follies. But it is quite another thing to force a sweeping experiment upon the whole society.
This is why there has been such great opposition to attempts to impose greater government control over the provision of health care. But not only is it an attempt to impose an unnatural order on a vital human activity; it is a clear infringement on the people's liberty.
A constitutional attitude recognizes that it is easier to break things than to repair them. It places great stock in caution: it is better to delay the possibility of good change than to be trapped by expediency in bad change.
Ambition and the anti-constitutional attitude repeatedly face us with this question: Will we have rule of law or rule by men?
Richard J. Grant is a professor of finance and economics at Lipscomb University and a scholar at the Tennessee Center for Policy Research. His column appears on Sundays. E-mail: rjg@richardjgrant.com
Copyright © Richard J Grant 2010
Constitution was intended to protect citizens from harmful change
by Richard J. Grant
The exceptional nature of the United States in world history is a reflection of the values and conservatism (in the sense of caution, not ideology) that were embedded by the framers in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. The intent, and for much of US history the result, was to protect Americans from a constitutional anarchy in which an individual's liberty is largely dependent on the arbitrary (and sometimes ephemeral) preferences of rulers, politicians, or even a voting majority.
In the Federalist No. 51, James Madison offered an explanation of the reasons for, and methods by which the Constitution would partition power and place the several constituent parts of the government in relation to each other such that they would be most likely to keep each other "in their proper places." Madison clearly states that the importance of this separation and relative independence of powers is found in the recognition that they are "essential to the preservation of liberty." The goal was the preservation of liberty for each individual in the United States.
The means of this preservation was devised in recognition of human nature. Americans, and particularly elected representatives, were to be set in constitutional relation to one another such that, "Ambition must be made to counteract ambition."
This was realism. The framers recognized that whatever idealism held the hearts of those who forged the new republic, not to mention those who merely acquiesced in the outcome, self-restraint would eventually yield to the instrumentalism of self-indulgence. The intentional alignment of the "interest of the man" with the "constitutional rights of the place" was recognized as a device "necessary to control the abuses of government."
The prescience of the framers, as embodied in their product, has been at war with human nature ever since. The framers’ fears are personified by those who exhibit the anti-constitutional mentality, that is, by those who see the Constitution as an obstacle to be circumvented rather than as a protector and moderator to be mutually embraced.
The ongoing clash of mentalities is well illustrated by recent maneuvers in Washington, DC. An attempt to bring sweeping changes to the regulation and provision of medical care has been met by an opposed array of institutions and interests, all of which were essentially predicted by Madison and the other framers.
In addition to the obvious separation of the branches of government, Madison also recognized the importance of "comprehending in the society so many separate descriptions of citizen as will render an unjust combination of the majority of the whole very improbable, if not impracticable." The Constitution was deliberately designed to divide and moderate the will of factions.
We see this today in the frustration of the faction that controls the executive branch and both houses of Congress. The constitutional role of the people, of individual citizens, is demonstrated in their influence on their representatives and the manner in which that serves to fragment the majority party.
The Constitution is designed to protect us from imposed change. It is one thing for individuals and their voluntary associations to experiment in their private activities and lifestyles. Others might learn from their successes and follies. But it is quite another thing to force a sweeping experiment upon the whole society.
This is why there has been such great opposition to attempts to impose greater government control over the provision of health care. But not only is it an attempt to impose an unnatural order on a vital human activity; it is a clear infringement on the people's liberty.
A constitutional attitude recognizes that it is easier to break things than to repair them. It places great stock in caution: it is better to delay the possibility of good change than to be trapped by expediency in bad change.
Ambition and the anti-constitutional attitude repeatedly face us with this question: Will we have rule of law or rule by men?
Richard J. Grant is a professor of finance and economics at Lipscomb University and a scholar at the Tennessee Center for Policy Research. His column appears on Sundays. E-mail: rjg@richardjgrant.com
Copyright © Richard J Grant 2010