You hear it all the time. Is blah blah constitutional or unconstitutional? Which interpretation (originalist, Living Constitution, post-structuralist, forest metal) did such and such a judge uses in their ruling about blah? All this back and forth tends to make give discussion of the U.S. Constitution a religious tone. An Anglican and a Catholic can get into a real intense discussion about whether the communion host is ACTUALLY the body of Christ, or whether it's a metaphor, but this disagreement, as serious as it seems, obscures what is shared by the Anglican and the Catholic: they both agree that George Washington is the son of God, and we return in 2012 to judge the Republicraps and the Demican'ts.
What would happen if we gathered our best minds, from all over the political spectrum, to hash it out and produce a document of compromise, as our "Founding Fathers" had the courage to do? I know there are people in our nation who are capable of this, maybe even some who have made a go of it, but none of these hypothetical groups have been granted the legitimacy of the State.
Why is this?
I was at a coffee shop a while back, and some Conservative Libertarians (not to be confused with true libertarians, also known as anarchists) were passing out pocket copies of the Constitution. I accepted one, not wishing to be rude, but at the same time wondering when the last time I had bothered to READ the thing. Of course it's a brilliant artifact of its time, the height of Enlightenment era political philosophy. It's implementation meant the end of feudalism and the rise of the bourgeoisie. Truly a step in the right direction. History is AWESOME!
The introduction to the pamphlet was written by a conservative thinker, and it mentioned something about the "social contract" which gives legitimacy for the State to rule over its citizens.
"I don't recall signing any contract with the State," I commented to the vigorous young woman who seemed to be the leader of this cadre.
She looked at me with the clear eyed assuredness of a true believer.
"It's not a contract that you actually sign. You implicitly agree to it by not revolting against it."
Oh, one of those kinds of contracts. Wait, WHAT kind of contract? Is there any other example of a contract that you have always-already signed, just by being born in a certain place? And do we actually have to REVOLT to get the terms and conditions of the contract changed to reflect the RADICALLY futuristic world we live in?
Maybe we're so attached to our founding document because, well, it was the first of its kind. Sort of had all the other nations scrambling to catch up, and we would let them down if we just canned it.
I understand this attitude. What we need here is evidence that a traditional, religious republic, (like our own) can successfully draft a new constitution that is better than their old one.
Let's see...it has to be new enough to be relevant, yet have lasted long enough to prove itself. Hey, that exactly describes ME! So I'll just type in my birth year and the word "constitution" into the googler and see what pops up.
Here's one! "It is the duty of the government to furnish all citizens with equal and appropriate opportunities, to provide them with work, and to satisfy their essential needs, so that the course of their progress may be assured." Hmmm...sounds good to me, but I'm a commie! This would never fly in our conservative fatherland! Wait, there's more...the name of the country is "Land of the Aryans." I think certain tea partiers would dig that! Also it's been civilized longer than almost anywhere! Conservatives love civilization and all the goodies it has brought us!
Can we do as well as Iran in providing for our citizens? I think so. You know what? I think we can do EVEN BETTER!!!!!!!!!