On Misreading the Constitution?

Frankly, Scarlett, I don’t give a damn (about the original intent of the founders). They lived in their time, we live in ours and the times they have a changed. They established a government, they did not write Holy Scripture.

In fact, I’m convinced that there is no original intent. If by the founders we mean those bewigged eighteenth century gentlemen in short pants and high stockings who wrote the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, let’s face it, the former also gave us the Articles of Confederation which was a compact of thirteen sovereign states (as in State of Israel, an independent nation) unified in fighting Britain but in hardly anything else, and then when that wasn’t working too well, some of them met in secret session to create the Constitution. So what was the original intent of that group? Hard to say. Some left mid-session in anger at what was going on; some refused to sign the Constitution because it didn’t say what they thought it should; others agreed with Ben Franklin who said, in effect, well, it’s not what anybody wants, but it’s the best we can do, so let’s sign the thing, hope for the best, and go home.

Immediately it was realized that the Constitution even with all its compromises wasn’t quite right so amendments were proposed by James Madison, ten of which were ratified very quickly, and then an eleventh and then a twelfth to resolve problems that none of the founders in their infinite wisdom had anticipated.

And yet, there are some today who seem to think that they know the Original Intent and that it is good.

Which brings me to Thomas J. Tobin, the Roman Catholic bishop of Rhode Island. Writing in The Providence Journal on January 12 he throws down the gauntlet to Governor Chafee who didn’t have a prayer service before his inauguration and who had the temerity to declare that Rhode Island was a secular state. “By now,” the bishop writes, “you should be aware that the exact phrase ‘separation of church and state’ isn’t found anywhere in our nation’s Constitution but rather was a principle that evolved later on…to protect religion from the interference of the state. It was never intended to remove every spiritual aspiration, prayerful utterance or reference to God from public life.” He then backs this up by quoting a Catholic archbishop, a pope, and quotations from Madison and Washington.

As to no mention of separation of church and state in the Constitution, the bishop is correct. There is also no mention of toleration of slavery (or even the word “slavery”) but there was slavery. There is no mention of judicial review, but there is judicial review. There is no mention of the air force, and yet the President is commander-in-chief of that as well as the army and navy which are mentioned. If we only look at what the founders said we’d only count three of every five black people every census. The Constitution was not written by divinely inspired men but by politicians. I’ll spare the bishop Thomas Jefferson’s vituperative remarks about Christianity and priests but will recommend that he look at Brooke Allen’s “Moral Minority” which demonstrates with ease that the founders were anything but religious folk and that they wanted as little to do with religion as possible.

The bishop also contends, rightly, that religious leaders have “every right, indeed the duty, to speak out on public issues. If we fail to do so, we’re neglecting our role as teachers, preachers and prophets.” Prophets? The age of prophesy is still with us? OK, let’s just chalk that off to hyperbole and agree that yes, religious leaders as citizens have a right to express their views. But do they have the right to threaten legislators with excommunication or denial of the sacraments to those of their faith who disagree with the hierarchy’s views? Archbishop Raymond Burke of St. Louis publicly stated that he would deny John Kerry communion because of his views on abortion and Archbishop Sean O’Malley of Boston, told Catholic elected officials who are pro-abortion that they should not be receiving communion and that they should refrain from taking part in the Christian sacrament on their own. This goes beyond writing a letter to the paper or seeking an interview to express differing views. Closer to home Bishop Tobin forbade Patrick Kennedy from receiving communion because of his advocacy of abortion rights. That’s what the founders had in mind? I’m thinking not. And if it is, I refer you to my first sentence.

On distortions of history

People ask me, “How do you get your ideas? Issue after issue, there’s ‘The Old Olivetti’ like clock-work.” The short answer is that I don’t get ideas, I just turn on the machine and start typing. Ollie does the rest. Other people say, “Don’t you have a computer? Do you really use an old electric typewriter? How do you correspond with your editor?” The answers are “no” “yes” and “by carrier pigeon, sometimes by phone.” Then they usually look at me oddly and question the carrier pigeon part. “Nu, so what‘s not to believe?” I ask. “Well, you gotta admit, they rejoinder, carrier pigeons in this day and age are a bit archaic, almost anachronistic, virtually Luddite.” So, “Yes,” I admit, but ask, “So what?” “So why not come live in the modern age?”

Live in the modern age? When I’m not being a shaper of opinion (usually my own) I‘m an historian. “The modern age” is like a stream. Go stand in the river, drop a feather at your feet, feel the water flow by you. By the time you‘ve gotten over your numbness, that feather is out of sight, beyond the bend or simply beyond sight. You have been left behind. Live with it; you’ll never catch up. What’s so great about the modern age? It's already someone’s past. It’s the past that is permanence, no matter how people pervert it. Things happened. Along come historians who try to tell what it was and understand it, impart meaning to it; along come exploiters who either twist it, deny it or make it up.

It’s twisted by Bush who makes Kerry (the war hero) the villain while he (the shirker) emerges conquering hero.

It’s denied by the likes of David Irving, David Duke, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and Neturei Karta. Whos Neturei Karta?” You ask? It’s not a who, it’s a what, and don’t ask. It is a group of self-proclaimed “Guardians of the City” a small but vocal Chassidic band of Shabbas-protecting rock-throwing brothers who believe that the establishment of a Jewish national home without divine authorization is a shanda! Members don’t exactly deny that the holocaust happened, but they do deplore using it as an opportunity to create the State of Israel which they see as “a poison, threatening true Jews” and they pray “that the underlying cause of strife and bloodshed in the Middle east, namely the state knows as Israel, be totally and peacefully dissolved.” So much for a two-state solution. Oh, and the Holocaust was the divine will. “The Zionists,” their spokesperson told the Tehran anti-Holocaust conference, “with their secular pompous approach behave in complete opposition to this philosophy and dare to say ‘Never Again.’ They have the audacity to think that they can prevent the Almighty from repeating a Holocaust. This is heresy.” Nu, so call me a heretic. Can we arrange for a steel cage grudge match between these fellows and those other religious zealots who want to tear down the Dome of the Rock to build the Third Temple? I'd pay money to see that show of piety.

Then there are those who make up history. Parson Mason Weems comes to mind. Do you know of him? Johnny-on-the-spot, when George Washington died, he published “A History of the Life and Death, Virtues and Exploits of General George Washington” which is as close to fictionalized hagiography imposed on the American public until the more recent exploits of Karl Rove. “I cannot tell a lie, I cut down the cherry tree” Washington, or Weems? Weems. Washington praying on his knees in the woods at Valley Forge? Weems, not Washington. Washington asking all to leave his death bed, praying, lifting his feet onto the bed and gently expiring, his soul lifted up to heaven? Weems. In an op-ed piece in a recent New York Times I was reminded of the fact that Washington illegally claimed land west of the line the Brits said should be reserved to the Indians, fought a war to invalidate British land policies hemming in the settlers (amongst other things) and then protested when squatters squatted on his land now legally his. (Not Weems.)

So I use an old Olivetti and carrier pigeons. It’s more honest that way. Oh, wait, a bird just few into the coop bearing a message. It’s from fearless editor. Let me read it. “Josh: Stop telling people we correspond by pigeon; it’s a lie.”