[Vision2020] Living document

Mon, 16 Dec 2002 10:08:32 -0800

<html>
Dear visionaries, 
Carl Westberg raised a serious question about this living document stuff,
using the internet as an example. My answer would be that the
Constitution doesn't pretend to be a detailed law for all things, like
some Code of Justinian. It presupposes the on-going existence of common
law, which functions with true authority within stated constitutional
limits. The Constitution is a document of enumerated powers, and solving
the problems created by time is therefore not complicated. If time makes
some feature of the Constitution irrelevant (as it will), then that
portion of the Constitution should be amended by means of the amendment
process. If time makes some feature of the Constitution just as relevant
as it ever was but unfortunately disregarded, then the action should be
to correct the problem by altering our political behavior. But currently
so many aspects of the Constitution are a dead letter (e.g. the 9th and
10 amendments) that we should simply admit that the Constitution is the
equivalent of America's royal family -- to be trotted out on formal
occasions to make us all feel good about the old days. Lots of people
swear to defend it, but not many read it -- especially the lawyers. You
see, it makes us feel good to swear to defend good queen Bess, or
whatever. 
In the meantime, we need to see how this relativism and progressive
thought has made it possible for George W. to do his thing ad
libitum -- because his interpretation is obviously as good as anybody
else's. We are now discovering, at the end of our relativistic party (now
that we are all relativists), that some of the relativists among us have
guns, lots of them. Of course, we hold fast to our principle, such as it
is, by claiming that we reserve to our progressive selves the right to
march against the war -- all the way to the federal building, that'll
show 'em! Of course, we also, as good relativists, defend Dubya's right
to nuke Iraq down to a lake of glass in order to go ice skating on it. He
has his views, we have ours: &quot;NO to war in Iraq!&quot; And Dubya
shrugs, and Ashcroft grins. &quot;Who's to say? Ya know?&quot; 
It reminds me, generally, of an exchange between George Washington and a
companion at the Constitutional Convention. Someone on the floor was
arguing that our new nation ought not to have a standing army of over
10,000 men. Washington leaned over and whispered that the proposal needed
a rider that stipulated that we would never be invaded by a force of over
15,000 men. 
Cordially, 
Douglas Wilson 
</html>