How Durable the American Idea?

It follows therefore, that vigilance is necessary to both preserve amendatory rights and prevent unconstitutional change

Since the American Idea is aspirational rather than a final product, it requires constant effort to perfect. Therefore, the Constitution was designed to allow changes consistent with advancing the Idea. The ability to preserve individual liberty in a dynamic environment is not the result of chance, but rather the machinery embedded in Article V of the Constitution. The Founders understood that the newly crafted Constitution, no matter how sound its principles, could not anticipate all the future would bring. Therefore, Article V succinctly composed of 143 words and harmonious with the principle of self-governance provides a peaceful and orderly means for modifying or amending the Constitution. 

To date the Constitution has been amended twenty-seven times, most recently in 1992 for the purpose of increasing Congressional accountability regarding compensation of members. In the lifetime of Baby Boomers, a total of six amendments have been adopted to advance the rights, accountability, and freedoms of American citizens. All these amendments were supported by both major political parties and passed with strong majorities.

It follows therefore, that vigilance is necessary to both preserve amendatory rights and prevent unconstitutional change. Such vigilance is built into the separate and co-equal branches of government – each branch jealously protecting its enumerated powers. But, while the Constitution is engineered for resilience, self-governance rests in the hands of citizens – people who the founders knew must be of good character and borrowing from President Lincoln acting within “the better angels of our nature.”

Benjamin Franklin’s cautionary words

This admonishment from Benjamin Franklin following the Constitutional Convention gives context to concerns about the essential character of those who would self-govern:

“I agree to this Constitution…and believe, further, that this is likely to be well administered for a course of years, and can only end in despotism, as other forms have done before it, when the people shall become so corrupted as to need despotic government, being incapable of any other.”

Since Franklin’s cautionary words, unconstitutional acts have been perpetrated by all three branches of government. Historical examples include the internment of Japanese Americans during WWII. President Roosevelt with broad support of the legislative branch and an acquiescent Supreme Court allowed the internment of Japanese Americans. Internment of American citizens irrespective of ethnic origins had no constitutional basis, but the clouds of war and fear intervened and our venerable but imperfect tripart system failed the Constitution.

In more recent times, Congress has routinely failed its obligation to craft timely budgets, opting instead to employ continuing resolutions; the Administrative Branch has failed to secure national borders and to enforce immigration laws, and the Supreme Court has too frequently rendered decisions along political party lines rather than evident constitutional principles. And a worrisome emerging trend is a willingness by those in power to manipulate the law to defeat ideological opponents. This includes use of prosecutorial powers knowing that even spurious charges dismissed on appeal can be sufficient to misguide voters and turn elections.

What is the status of good character in America?

What this demonstrates is that citizen self-government is messy, and our republic has been remarkably able over time to self-right errant and unconstitutional acts. But this ability to self-correct is only applicable if citizens of good character select leaders of like character to advance the Constitution. Failure here is surely the type of corruption described by Franklin and raises the question, “what is the status of good character in America?”

A recent Rasmussen Report poll offers a startling insight and a warning. In this survey, the 1 percent of respondents with incomes over $150,000 a year, live in densely populated areas, and possess postgraduate degrees are designated as elites. When asked if they would support preferred candidates who win by cheating, 35% of elites said yes. This compares with a 7% affirmative response from all other respondents. While it is comforting to know that a vast majority of respondents remain opposed to those who would cheat to gain office, it is alarming to consider that many of the most prosperous and influential among us have embraced a “win by any means” mentality.

As we ponder the lessons of history and the worrisome trajectory of current events we must remember that protectors of the American Idea remain where they have always been – with We the People. People of good character.