By George Will
Thursday, July 04, 2019
Washington — On this 243rd anniversary of the
beginning of the best thing that ever happened — “The Great Republic” was
Winston Churchill’s tribute — many of today’s most interesting arguments about
America’s nature and meaning are among conservatives. One concerns the
relevance of the Declaration of Independence to the contested question of how
to construe the Constitution.
The crucial question is: What did the Founders intend —
what was their foundational purpose? Mark Pulliam, who might disagree that this
is the crucial question, certainly thinks the Declaration is not pertinent to
construing the Constitution.
Pulliam, a lawyer and contributing editor of the
excellent Law & Liberty blog, notes portentously that the Declaration is
not mentioned in the Constitution. This, however, is as obvious as it is
obviously irrelevant. Neither is democracy “mentioned,” and the Declaration is
hardly mentioned in The Federalist Papers. However, the Declaration
expressed, as Jefferson insisted, the broadly shared “common sense of the
subject.” Rather than belabor the Declaration’s (to them, unremarkable)
assertions, the Constitution’s Framers set about creating institutional
architecture that would achieve their intention: to establish governance that
accords with the common sense of their time, which was that government
is properly instituted to “secure” the preexisting natural rights referenced in
the Declaration.
Also obvious and irrelevant is Pulliam’s observation that
Jefferson, the Declaration’s primary author, was not at the Constitutional
Convention (he was a U.S. diplomat in Paris). What is obvious — and, concerning
the Constitution’s original meaning and continuing purpose, dispositive — is
this: The Declaration’s role is the locus classicus concerning the Framers’
intention, which is surely the master key to properly construing what they
wrought.
The late Judith Shklar (1928-1992), a Harvard political
philosopher, correctly noted the “momentous novelty” of the Constitution’s
first three words, “We the people.” They announced a “declaration of
independence from the entire European past,” a root-and-branch rejection of all
prior attempts to ground the legitimacy of government in anything other than
the consent of the governed. The Constitution was, however, written by men of
the Enlightenment who were not confident that the rationality they practiced
and espoused could be counted on to constantly characterize the republic for
which they wrote.
The Declaration did not mention majority rule, which the
Founders embraced because they considered it, when public opinion is properly
refined and filtered, the best — although hardly a certain — mechanism for
protecting the natural rights affirmed in the Declaration. Those rights, not a
procedure (majority rule), was their foundational concern. The equilibrium of
Madison’s constitutional architecture is currently in disarray, with
congressional anemia enabling presidential imperiousness. Nevertheless, the
architecture was designed to “secure” — the crucial verb in the Declaration’s
second paragraph — the natural rights the Declaration affirms.
The Reverend Martin Luther King Jr.’s genius — he was, in
a sense, the final Founder — was in understanding what the University of Pennsylvania’s
Rogers M. Smith terms the “Declaration of Independence-centered view of
American governance and peoplehood.” Over the years, this stance of
“Declarationists” explicitly opposed Jacksonian democracy’s majoritarian
celebration of a plebiscitary presidency, and the 1854 Kansas-Nebraska Act’s
premise that majorities (“popular sovereignty”) could and should — wrong on
both counts — settle the question of whether slavery should expand into the
territories.
The learned and recondite disputes currently embroiling
many conservatives, disputes about various doctrines of interpretive
constitutional “originalism,” are often illuminating and sometimes conclusive
in constitutional controversies. But all such reasoning occurs in an unchanging
context. Timothy Sandefur, author of The Conscience of the Constitution,
rightly sees the Declaration as the conscience because it affirms “the
classical liberal project of the Enlightenment and the pervasiveness of such
concepts as natural rights.”
Furthermore, Sandefur says, this explains the
Constitution’s use of the word “liberty,” which “does not refer to some
definitive list of rights, but refers to an indefinite range of freely chosen
action.” Which means that the Constitution should be construed in the bright
light cast by the Declaration’s statement of the Founding generation’s general
intention to privilege liberty.
Pulliam dismisses as “inapt Biblical imagery” Lincoln’s
elegant formulation that the Constitution is the frame of silver for the apple
of gold, which is the Declaration. Lincoln’s mission was to reconnect the
nation with its Founding. The frame, Lincoln said, is to “adorn” and “preserve”
the apple. Frames are important and silver is precious, but what is framed is
more important and gold is more precious. So, tonight, by the light of some
sparklers, read the Declaration, which illuminates what came next, the
Constitution, and a nation worth celebrating.
No comments:
Post a Comment