Heigh-ho

Well if the mistakes of the Founders need not burden the Republic any more, then I first vote for an amendment to make the Constitution a 'living, breathing document.' Or was that covered in the appropriate Jefferson quote?

Well done, Cricket. You've pointed out the enduring discomforture among Federalists (such as myself) who give great homage to the original idea of the Constitution, and yet at the same time argue for the remedy of past mistakes, enacted constitutionally and by popular demand. But I beleive that the Founders intended that the Constitution be a purposefully fluent idea, an one that should reflect the circumstances and convictions of the moment. There remains, however, a significant difference between the lawfully enacted misguidance by "the dead hand" of a popular society generations past, and the uncontrolled, unpopular nature of "a living, breathing constitution" that emanates from the lordly reaches of the Supreme Court. See, e.g. Kelo, Raiche.

Jefferson admonished us each to receive, embrace, and grow the Constitution in a manner that best reflects the current societal circumstances. The mechanics of that covenant, however, require that such change not only reflect immediate popular sentiment, but invlove determined debate and persistant resolve. The Equal Rights and Flag Burning Amendments are prime examples of reacitonary and unsustainable popular sentiment that have failed to find enshrinement in the nation's foundational document. And for good reason.

But, hey, everybody makes mistakes. That is what Jefferson, Madison, and Hamilton meant for us to understand.


1:24 PM

As a Zell Miller Democrat from the Great State of Georgia (originally; currently in VA), I have to admit that my own awareness of the issue comes from that very speech of Sen. Miller's that you mention. I've only been thinking about it that long myself.

But what's a political tradition for, if you can't learn from your predecessors? Senator Miller is mine, and Jefferson was his (through James Jackson and a host of other Georgia Democrats). We can rethink things as we need to do, precisely because of the the tradition of which we are a part.

Well said, Grim.

I've been looking for a quote (instead of raking the winter detrious from the gardens) and finally found it.

From Judge Learned Hand, outside of Robert Bork, the most qualified Justice never to serve on the Supreme Court (thank you, Mr. Roosevelt):

"For myself it would be most irksome to be ruled by a bevy of Nine Platonic Guardians, even if I knew how to choose them, which I assuredly do not."
-L. Hand, The Bill of Rights, 73 (1958).

You know, as I look at this and the one on Cass's blog about the Electoral College, I find myself reading carefully
and have another question: What 'societal concerns' could the Founders
have sought for future generations to
correct? Ferinstance: I don't see that promoting the general welfare is to rob Peter to pay Paul. Kelo vs. New London is a variation on a theme...the little guy gets it in the teeth, courtesy of the feelings of the SC.

The absolute brilliance of the Constitution, Cricket, is that, writing more than two hundred years ago, the authors recognized the insignificance of their current circumstances (as famously significant as they proved historically) and sacrificed their hubris to the sense and enlightenment of generations yet to come. So generous is their legacy that we argue over, not the document's substance, but its inuendo, its message, its feel in a world far removed from the dark days of the War of Rebellion. What the Consitution means to "us" is the never-to-be-finshed work of our Republic. How thrilling that we may be part of this living, breathing, heritage.

It's good to be alive, and American.

While I don't have time to wade into this, I recommend to you an opinion piece that, ironically, was written by Fritz Hollings, a Democrat who occasionally makes sense, in Feb 19th's WaPo in which he comments:

...almost one-third of a senator's time is spent fundraising. The Senate schedule calls for morning-long committee hearings (which many times extend into the afternoon). In the afternoon, there is debate on the floor and votes. Little time is left for talking to the staff or to constituents, answering mail, phone calls, etc. Every evening there is an average of three receptions or fundraisers, followed by three breakfasts or fundraisers the next morning. A senator has so many committee assignments that there is no way to attend all the functions he or she should. He's constantly asking the staff or a colleague, "What happened?"


The lobbyists don't bother with the senator; they take the staff to lunch. Legislation is not drafted in the Senate but in the law offices. Staffs are queried to make sure the senator is favorably disposed and once there are enough senators so inclined, the measure moves to the party leadership's staff. The next thing you know, the measure is a party position and becomes "must" legislation. Sometimes a senator is on the way to the floor to vote on it, asking his staff, "What's this all about?" and the staff replies, "You're for this, vote 'aye,' or you're against this, vote 'nay.' "
The money crowd has the money, and representatives and senators need the money. But no one wants to touch the reason for the ethical misconduct. Excise the cancer of money, and most of the misconduct will disappear.

You can find it at:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/17/AR2006021701847.html

I also, FWIW, happen to think repealing Clause I of the 17th is not a bad idea, but that is not surprising given that I'm such a stick in the mud about the Electoral College.