We must continue to revise the Constitution
I am writing in response to the commentary “Why our Constitution must be defended,” which recently appeared in The Morning Call (Sept. 17).
The writer makes some excellent points: The Constitution of the United States was a remarkable feat and a testament to the lofty ideals of the American spirit. Education is crucial in ensuring the newest generation has a robust understanding of history.
However, as one of the younger generations who endured what the writer calls the “outright promotion of Marxist propaganda,” I would like to raise a few points in our defense.
The commentary claims that many in this generation find issue with the U.S. Constitution. Does the writer stop to consider why?
One might propose that these discontented individuals are simply not experiencing the freedoms and protections that the Constitution claims to uphold. It makes perfect sense that they would resent an adherence to this document.
When the Constitution was written, slavery was legal. According to the last census, there are now 42 million non-Hispanic Blacks living in the United States. This document, in its pure, original, unamended form, does not speak for them, nor does it speak for the millions of other legal minority citizens living in this great country. Amendments to correct this are a form of revision.
I would posit that continual reexamination of work is generally good practice. It is proof of human beings’ unique ability for adaptation, introspection and critical thinking. If your boss asked for a proposal on how to improve company health, you would not use documents from 1980 to form your suggestions. You wouldn’t even use them from 2015, let alone 1787.
When the Constitution was written, there were no radios, cars, telephones or television. No way of connecting, instantaneously, to information from countries thousands of miles away. The ideals can — and should — remain the same, but it is foolish to pretend that the applications have not changed.
I think young people, being further removed from this history, have the vantage point to see more clearly the disconnect between what was written and what is.
The Catholic Church, one of the oldest institutions in the modern
world, famously revised its own doctrine during Vatican II. One of the church’s biggest changes involved substituting vernacular for the use of Latin during Mass. It did nothing to change the underlying meaning or intention of the Catholic Mass, nor did it intrude on the faith of believers. Instead, this adaptation with response to a changing social environment ensured accessibility to a new generation.
I agree it would be irresponsible to create “new powers out of thin air” at the whim of some judge. This is why
we have a process for the creation and signing of bills and amendments, and I think most young people would agree with this process.
I do wonder why one would be more likely to trust the judgment of men who died 200 years ago over that of equally qualified men (and women) who are not only blessedly vital, but aware of the complexities that face modern civilization.
I think there is a tendency to glamorize the Founding Fathers, an emotional response that runs counter to the practical, pragmatic approach they utilized in crafting the Constitution. They fought against what they found to be an oppressive regime, and, like it or not, America has become just that to many people.
The Sept. 17 op-ed voices concern that the younger generation has been essentially brainwashed into perceiving America as “the source of evil.”
Yet if this were the case, why would they bother with reforms? It is faith in America that drives this call for revision — people are able to love something while simultaneously recognizing its flaws.
We are a globalized world now, in a way no Founding Father could ever imagine. America might have had the first Constitution, but has since been joined by 192 like-minded countries all holding their own. Clutching onto the arbitrary location of our birth as our utmost source of identity serves only to alienate us.
There is so much to learn from looking outside of our national walls. Is the U.S. a leader? Absolutely. And the best leaders lead with humility, learning from others, and admitting their mistakes.
I would like to think that those who oppose originalist interpretation of the U.S. Constitution are not “rewriting history.” The gardener respects his plants by tending to them, not letting them grow unchecked. By reexamining the Constitution in light of modernity, this generation hopes not to dismember the system, but to nurture it into something stronger.
I imagine the writers of the Constitution, who were themselves fearless agents of change, would be proud of such resolve — it demonstrates respect for the shifting needs of the American people. And a country is nothing without the people who call it home.