The Radical Right of the Republican Party—whether it's the MAGA movement or radical jurists and historians who may not be MAGA—all hold to the same basic tenet: that the Constitution and Declaration of Independence are to be interpreted as the words were intended at the time it was adopted. The theory is called "strict construction" by jurists weighing the Constitution or it's called "self-evident" truths by historians analyzing the Declaration. They find a difference between what was intended when written and the way the words have been interpreted in modern times.
This theory is contrary to the perspective of liberal thinkers who view the Constitution as a "living" document, meaning that the words retain their essence, but their application changes as the world the words are applied to changes. They find the intent of the Founding Fathers to be different than the Radical Right does. Are these two ways of looking at our founding documents contradictory or complementary?
First, let's discuss the idea of strict construction. The Constitution was written to last a long time. Jefferson may have famously said that having a revolution regularly would be a good thing and that the Constitution should be reevaluated every 20 years, but for most of the Founding Fathers, the Constitution was written in such a way that it could be applied as written for a long time, with appropriate amendments when needed. It was thought to be a flexible document.
And indeed, that's the only way of looking at the Constitution that makes sense. Literally rewriting the Constitution periodically would create harmful instability. Jefferson's thought about reevaluating the Constitution is exactly what the courts do—deciding what is covered and what is not; applying the original intent to current circumstances—so there has been no need to rewrite it, except for adding amendments.
If we look at the Founder's intent—and it always comes back to their intent—we see that they were creating a document for the future, not just the here and now. The question should be how would the Founder's interpret their words applied to the current situation, not how we interpret their words looking at the context in which they lived. See below.
Next, let's look at the meaning of "self-evident." Matthew Spaulding, formerly Director of American Studies at the Heritage Foundation, says he is a believer in the self-evident truths proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence and argues that liberals do not believe in the self-evident truths.
On its face, his statement seems incredulous, for who more than liberals, i.e. Democrats, believe fervently in the principle of equality and that all of us, each and every one, has the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
What becomes clear in reading Spaulding is that "self-evident", meaning obvious, is determined for him by what the a person would see or think looking around at the world he exists in. As he sees it, the truth of equality then would not be the concept of equality that we have today. The meaning of the word "men" would not have the all-inclusive implication we give to that word today.
But while the phrase "self-evident" does indeed mean obvious, requiring no reasoning, he uses the man on the street in 1776 to interpret what the words "equal" or "men" mean. This is where Spaulding's interpretation is in error.
John Adams and his fellow Founding Fathers were not the average man on the street in 1776. The were men of the Enlightenment, the philosophical movement that held sway among learned men in the 18th century.
What did "equal" mean to John Adams? While Adams said that there were many false notions of equality—words the Heritage Foundation focuses on—he goes on to say that equality "really means little more than that We are all of the same Species: made by the same God: possessed of Minds and Bodies alike in Essence: having all the same Reason, Passions, Affections and Appetites."
This is what the Declaration means when it says that it is self-evident that all men are created equal. A more modern notion of equality could not be stated, except the reference to God. (Today, those who don't believe in God would say that we are all the same miracle of creation.) Clearly, Adams believed that regardless of color, regardless of social status, we are all basically the same when we are born, even as to how we are wired.
As for the meaning of "men," those who subscribed to the Enlightenment often used that word as a shorthand for "humanity." Thus the use of that term by Jefferson in writing the Declaration means that all people are created equal.
In both cases, the intellectual/philosophical justification for the narrow reading of our Founding Documents used by both the intellectual thinkers of the Radical Right and the average Radical Republican or MAGA adherent does not hold water. It is contrary to the intent of the Founders. And so their whole system of interpretation falls.
The Founding Fathers were not "small" men. They were great men with huge intellectual capacity. Some, like Jefferson, were bound to earth by their association with slavery, but their minds soared. It is that soaring mind that is reflected in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. And it is their minds and intent that should form the basis for interpreting these documents and applying them to the present.
It's easy to cherry-pick statements from a life of writing to make your point as the Radical Right does. Conservatives have done the same with the Bible in order to make their arguments. But when the Founding Fathers' life work or the Bible is looked at as a whole, then the real self-evident truth is revealed. There is no conflict between looking at the Founders' intent and looking at the Constitution as a living document.
No comments:
Post a Comment