Chit Chat #2: What *Is* the Dang Constitution, Anyway?

Another round at “Line of Fire,” the blog for Broadside Books, where Tea Party leader Michael Patrtick Leahy and I are engaging in a civil yet incisive discussion of my contention that the Tea Party has distorted founding history to fit current political aims.

Circling now around the Constitution.  In the earlier round, Leahy called it a secular covenant; he also called its adoption and ratification “authentically democratic.” So I say:

I suspect there’s something about your use of “covenant” that needs to be unpacked. Is “covenant” a reference to the incontrovertible fact that the document was written via delegation and ratified via representation?

Nobody can disagree that the Constitution was “formed in an intense, elaborate national discussion that took place over four long years from 1787 to 1791.” But I do infer that we have a clear and stark disagreement over the role of democracy in both the convention and ratification, and in this regard I have a disagreement with many liberal historians too. I think the convention’s purpose, as Randolph announced in calling the meeting to order, was to redress what he called “insufficient checks” against what he was not alone in calling “the democracy.”. . .


I use the term “secular covenant” to describe  the binding nature of the Constitution. It represents an agreement between the citizens, the state governments, and the federal government as to how we consent to be governed.  The terms of this secular covenant are contained in the words of the Constitution and its subsequent amendments, and their meaning is the plain meaning of those words. The method of changing the terms of the secular covenant is found in the amendment process of the document itself. No other means of changing the terms–either expansive judicial interpretrations or executive usurpations–are authentic. . . .


(Stay tuned again . . . )

Add to: Facebook | Digg | | Stumbleupon | Reddit | Blinklist | Twitter | Technorati | Furl | Newsvine

One thought on “Chit Chat #2: What *Is* the Dang Constitution, Anyway?

  1. The Constitution is a text composed by an economic and political elite sworn to secrecy so as to avoid making their designs a matter of public record. A public understanding would have only made the imposition of those plans upon the public more difficult to achieve. The plans were best known only to the constitutional conspirators in order to institutionalize and legitimize their own advantage.

    The Revolution of 1776 was fought to end Britain’s interference with the internal affairs of the power elite of the day.

    The Revolution of 1787 was a great step toward ending interference with the internal affairs of the power elite by the governments of the several states.

    The text means only what the power elite want it to mean. It is not to be understood by a reading as though it were common language but will be known only through interpretations made in secrecy by the high priests of the power elite.

    The Fourteenth Amendment, for example, may appear to grant protections to natural persons but in fact makes natural persons subordinate to artificial persons.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s