"Created by geniuses for use by idiots..."
If you haven't noticed, I've been busy for the past few weeks. I promised I'd
tell you why the constitution isn't what you probably think it is. The framers
made assumptions that were not contained in the document, and were not vital
to its purpose. Therein lies the rub.
People were different 220 years ago. They lived hard, they died young, and
they didn't need anyone to tell them what to do or when to do it. Now there
were brigands and cutthroats and ruffians to be sure, but the vast majority
of people in the nascent United States were honest, hard-working, God-fearing
folk.
The same is true today, of course. The difference is that two centuries ago
the busybodies, crybabies, and malcontents had to work hard to get their
message out to a wide audience. Today, they can put it on the web (Like Me!),
and perhaps grab a little mind-share by staging a rally of some sort that is
covered by the press. The point is that there were busybodies and crybabies,
but they did not hold sway over the entire society.
So the constitution was drafted with all of this in mind. No provisions were
put in to mandate one set of morals over another. The country, it was argued,
more or less existed because certain people in certain places decided what
religious values were allowed.
Note however, that just because there were no provisions in the Constitution
relating to what was right and wrong, society-at-large did not start raping
and pillaging and generally being bad people as soon as it went into effect.
People stayed the way they were, and lived by whatever moral code they desired.
This is not to say that the individual states didn't immediately start butting
into people's lives. Of course they did. It's inevitable, really. People
conscientious enough to run for public office are rarely wise enough not to
try and "help" people once they get there.
How this relates to today's problems and today's society is simple really.
Somewhere along the line, people decided that the Constitution of the nation
as a whole, not just the state constitutions and statues, had to make moral
judgments.
It all started with Article XVIII, which states that the, "...manufacture,
sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors within, the importation
thereof into, or the exportation thereof from the United States and all
territory subject to the jurisdiction thereof for beverage purposes is
hereby prohibited." Now, in retrospect, we can all see the stupidity of
this. When you look at Article XVIII alongside all the other Articles of
the Constitution, it just doesn't fit. It's as if some busybody managed
to sneak it past Congress and the people under the guise of "protecting
the children" or "improving the moral fiber of the nation" or some such
nonsense.
[An aside: Some people might argue that Article XIII was the first "moral"
judgment, I do not concur. While compromises were made in the initial draft,
and continued to be made for a half-century afterwards, the framers wanted to
abolish slavery from the outset. Slavery is inherently evil, and cannot by
justified by any moral code worthy of the name (So is conscription for that
matter, but that's for another time.)]
You can see where I'm going with this, of course. The Framers of the
Constitution NEVER intended it to guide people's day to day lives. The
Constitution is a set of guarantees, a social contract, if you will, that
"We the people" make to all persons inside the borders of this nation. Think
of it as a set of minimum requirements. Adding anything to Constitution
that does not come under that aegis is counter productive.
The code that people live by, the document or religion or whatever, is a
personal matter between himself and his deity, or deities, or even himself
(i.e., his sense of honor and duty). If they have no code, they are most
likely stupid, evil, or both; society will deal with them as necessary.
Just because there is no Article in the Constitution that forbids me from
walking around and hitting people in the head with a crowbar, doesn't
make it right. Similarly, just because there is no provision banning
abortion, or same-sex marriage, it does not make those things right. On
the other hand, it doesn't make them inherently wrong either. Each
individual must decide for themselves what is and isn't right.
There is no reason that you can't hold yourself to a strict moral code if that
is what you choose. No one will prevent you from living your life according to
the tenants of Orthodoxy, be it Islam, Judaism, Christianity, or Buddhism. Not
a soul will lift a finger to stop you from living exclusively among people who
share your moral outlook. No one will slap you down and say, "You may not..."
That's one of the guarantees in the Constitution.
The Constitution protects me in a similar way, though. I cannot be forced to
live by the tenants of your moral system against my will. I can choose to
hold myself to a higher standard or not as I see fit. You may judge me or
mock me or even damn me, but you cannot stop me. This is as the framers
intended it, and as it should be.
So, fanatics of every ilk, please do us all a favor and just chill out. If
you feel pornography is evil, don't buy it, and don't look at it. If you
feel abortion is wrong, don't have one. If you feel people of the same sex
shouldn't be married, then don't marry one. If drinking is a sin, don't drink.
If smoking is an affront to God, don't smoke. Everyone must wrestle with these
issues, and everyone lives with the consequences of their decisions. People
will be good or evil regardless of what you do. Evil cannot be legislated
away, or else it would have been done long ago.Next Time: A guest editorial on The War of Yankee Aggression, by my pal Jason.
Rickwood Out...
(With apologies to Brock Meeks)