rockaction
Footballguy
Lately I have broken with my former political compatriots because I see that they do not respect many things that I hold sacrosanct. One of those things that they claim is sacrosanct but -- in my opinion -- they do a poor job of respecting while seemingly always pointing to it is the Constitution Of The United States, the document upon which our nation is founded.
The Constitution itself is viewed, and wonderfully so, as a national treasure, a code that is a blueprint for our happiness and survival. We see the word "happiness" in the preamble to our revolutionary declaration, our Declaration Of Independence, which foregoes other such tangible words and reasons for revolution and settles on that word. That our Creator secures the self-evident right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness is the touchstone for revolutions, that denial of these things gives us the moral and legal authority to overthrow the binding authority of previous legalisms.
All well and good then, that's high school, or these days, collegiate civics, basic and unimpeded. But what did the Declaration portend? What did the later document that people cite as authority do? Well, the Constitution was hotly debated, its measures were often compromises, and it had trouble in its ratification. But the nation longed for something more stable than the Articles Of Confederation that had governed from 1781-1789, an arrangement between the sovereign states that proved unworkable. So back to the drawing board for the Constitution.
All well and good again. But what does that tell us, that interim, that ratification process of the new document that would govern our lives. Well, it tells us that there is something the predates the Constitution as an impetus for self-governance. What are those things? Well, we look to the Founders' intellectual influences. Well, in antiquity there is Aristotle. His taxonomical inclinations and scientific leanings in antiquity are the touchstones of modern Enlightenment thought. Then there are Rosseau, Locke, Hobbes, and Montesquieu, the most influential of contract theory philosophers in the Enlightenment. Again, this is political philosophy for beginners, so what is the point here?
The point is this: The Constitution defends the ends of society. What brings about these ends? Why does society organize at all? Because, according to three of the contract theorists, the State of Nature, where man exists freely without governance, turns inevitably into a State of War, or a war of all against all, so people seek to civilize themselves from their first impulses towards killing into a sharing, altruistic form of self-governance whereby a contract is created among those seeking reprieve from the killing. It is a philosophical detente, one that provides that we give a bit of ourselves over to the state for security and, therefore, existence.
Some say freedom, but existence is the first secured thing upon leaving the state of nature. All other impulses, the contract theorists theorize, follow from this newfound security. No longer "nasty, brutish, and short," governance allows us to respect each other's most basic boundaries. Still 101, right? Fine, the point is that the Constitution, quite simply put, follows from the original philosophical impulse out of the State of Nature and into organized governance. Where the tension, then? Well, Rousseau and the section of the American intellectuals that followed French contract theory believed that the state of nature was actually a place where man was born free and lived happily. However, over time he came to have families and communities, and these communities and families introduced agriculture and private property, which then became enforced by a force that corrupted man's original state of happiness. Rousseau posited that it was the first interventions on behalf of the state that caused man's unhappiness, unlike the other contract theorists that posited that it was man's nature that caused the first problems.
Even with these divergent views of man's nature, one comes to contract theory through one of two conclusions. Either the state of nature is always corrupt and redeemed by contract, or the state of nature in which man was happy is impossible to attain again after the advent of family and rules, and therefore contract theory is the only thing that can restore man to his proper state of freedom and security. The two schools of thought propose radically different things for the restoration, but the agreement is there that there is a corrupting force somewhere and that contract theory is the way out.
So what does this mean for the Constitution. Well it means a lot of compromise. And it means two camps, the Anti-Federalists and The Federalists, who have differing conceptions of how government comes to be, how it should work, and the means best to secure those ends.
And that is the point. That the Constitution has ends. It is not a sacrosanct end unto itself other than preservation of the Republic as we know it. It secures our freedom and our need for security. How it does that is through a utopian view of political science, but it is a methodology and means nonetheless, a compromise born of philosophy and expediency.
So what is the point? The point is that impulses and desires predate the Constitution. It has ends. When people seek to discard its methodology and keep the same ends, they are fundamentally changing its purpose, which is a means-based document. A means-based document should not be cited as an end to itself, nor should its means be altered lightly as its ends and compromises have been considered at extraordinarily high levels of thought and abstraction.
That is what I what everyone to remember. That the Constitution, while providing for some of the most stable and conscientious government in the world, is a utile document, a political end, but one used to serve other ends, ends that are both more vital and a touch more abstract. That is what I ask people to remember upon its consideration. Thanks for your time.
The Constitution itself is viewed, and wonderfully so, as a national treasure, a code that is a blueprint for our happiness and survival. We see the word "happiness" in the preamble to our revolutionary declaration, our Declaration Of Independence, which foregoes other such tangible words and reasons for revolution and settles on that word. That our Creator secures the self-evident right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness is the touchstone for revolutions, that denial of these things gives us the moral and legal authority to overthrow the binding authority of previous legalisms.
All well and good then, that's high school, or these days, collegiate civics, basic and unimpeded. But what did the Declaration portend? What did the later document that people cite as authority do? Well, the Constitution was hotly debated, its measures were often compromises, and it had trouble in its ratification. But the nation longed for something more stable than the Articles Of Confederation that had governed from 1781-1789, an arrangement between the sovereign states that proved unworkable. So back to the drawing board for the Constitution.
All well and good again. But what does that tell us, that interim, that ratification process of the new document that would govern our lives. Well, it tells us that there is something the predates the Constitution as an impetus for self-governance. What are those things? Well, we look to the Founders' intellectual influences. Well, in antiquity there is Aristotle. His taxonomical inclinations and scientific leanings in antiquity are the touchstones of modern Enlightenment thought. Then there are Rosseau, Locke, Hobbes, and Montesquieu, the most influential of contract theory philosophers in the Enlightenment. Again, this is political philosophy for beginners, so what is the point here?
The point is this: The Constitution defends the ends of society. What brings about these ends? Why does society organize at all? Because, according to three of the contract theorists, the State of Nature, where man exists freely without governance, turns inevitably into a State of War, or a war of all against all, so people seek to civilize themselves from their first impulses towards killing into a sharing, altruistic form of self-governance whereby a contract is created among those seeking reprieve from the killing. It is a philosophical detente, one that provides that we give a bit of ourselves over to the state for security and, therefore, existence.
Some say freedom, but existence is the first secured thing upon leaving the state of nature. All other impulses, the contract theorists theorize, follow from this newfound security. No longer "nasty, brutish, and short," governance allows us to respect each other's most basic boundaries. Still 101, right? Fine, the point is that the Constitution, quite simply put, follows from the original philosophical impulse out of the State of Nature and into organized governance. Where the tension, then? Well, Rousseau and the section of the American intellectuals that followed French contract theory believed that the state of nature was actually a place where man was born free and lived happily. However, over time he came to have families and communities, and these communities and families introduced agriculture and private property, which then became enforced by a force that corrupted man's original state of happiness. Rousseau posited that it was the first interventions on behalf of the state that caused man's unhappiness, unlike the other contract theorists that posited that it was man's nature that caused the first problems.
Even with these divergent views of man's nature, one comes to contract theory through one of two conclusions. Either the state of nature is always corrupt and redeemed by contract, or the state of nature in which man was happy is impossible to attain again after the advent of family and rules, and therefore contract theory is the only thing that can restore man to his proper state of freedom and security. The two schools of thought propose radically different things for the restoration, but the agreement is there that there is a corrupting force somewhere and that contract theory is the way out.
So what does this mean for the Constitution. Well it means a lot of compromise. And it means two camps, the Anti-Federalists and The Federalists, who have differing conceptions of how government comes to be, how it should work, and the means best to secure those ends.
And that is the point. That the Constitution has ends. It is not a sacrosanct end unto itself other than preservation of the Republic as we know it. It secures our freedom and our need for security. How it does that is through a utopian view of political science, but it is a methodology and means nonetheless, a compromise born of philosophy and expediency.
So what is the point? The point is that impulses and desires predate the Constitution. It has ends. When people seek to discard its methodology and keep the same ends, they are fundamentally changing its purpose, which is a means-based document. A means-based document should not be cited as an end to itself, nor should its means be altered lightly as its ends and compromises have been considered at extraordinarily high levels of thought and abstraction.
That is what I what everyone to remember. That the Constitution, while providing for some of the most stable and conscientious government in the world, is a utile document, a political end, but one used to serve other ends, ends that are both more vital and a touch more abstract. That is what I ask people to remember upon its consideration. Thanks for your time.
