Proving that “Politics in Perspective” is very much about perspective, Dr.
Buddy Rogers proceeded in Sunday’s (Nov. 25) newspaper to narrow the perspective so much that it proved little else.
Writing with the sound of intellectual authority about supporting and defending the Constitution, he makes a very cogent point that the Constitution does indeed need some kind of defense from myopic thinkers and writers such as himself.
Taking up a muchbelabored Tea Party theme, he bandies around some very important words, not the least of which is “freedom.” The implication of part of his argument is freedom derives to a large degree in getting back to the original meaning of the Constitution’s dictates and the limits it imposes.
Yet he never informs usthat any study of early American history yields an understanding that probably the most original thing about this remarkable document is that its “original meanings” were debated and disputed hotly and vigorously among the nation’s founders.
When it was proposed, and hardly unanimously accepted, by the founders or the citizenry, Alexander Hamilton and James Madison undertook the task of “explaining” its meanings in The Federalist, brilliantly arguing together for the centralized form of government the document authorized. Still, four of the states, north and south, ultimately ratifi ed it by as little as two to ten votes. By 1793, Madison had switched sides under Jefterson’s tutelage, reversing himself on federalist political philosophy, and in a pseudonymous writingopposed Hamilton on the issue of the proposed national bank. American historian Joseph Ellis argues that this likely issued from Jefterson’s and Madison’s fears that centralized financial power would imperil the southern states’ practice of human bondage, a topic studiously avoided by the founders that was fi nally settled by Abraham Lincoln’s 13th amendment in 1865 and decisively forbidden.
Ellis’ book, “American Creation,” about the founding of our constitutional government, would be a fine text for Dr.
Rogers and all the others hungry to know more about the Constitution.
The Constitution was not conceived or created as a static document. That is likely its true genius.
Hence, it has been amended throughout its 222 years, and may be yet again somefuture day. ...
So, study it for sure. But don’t expect, as Dr. Rogers seems to me to imply, that one can find an absolute answer there all the time that will endorse - from original meaning - one’s own perspective. Until the last setting sun, people like Dr. Rogers and me will read and study that same great document and fundamentally disagree about what it commands or limits on a wide range of issues. It will forever refuse to become atrophied, as much as all the “strict constructionists” would love for it to. The founders created it that way. That’s why it will live long beyond all our arguments about their arguments. They wanted us to be free to do just that.
DANIEL EVANS
Elm Springs
Opinion, Pages 5 on 12/05/2012