I gave a speech last night to a group of citizens local to me and learned a lot in the process. I always learn when I speak because I’m able to actually engage with Americans directly and hear what they know, don’t know, their fears, concerns, and more.
I had a conversation with someone afterwards about the Constitution. He was a bit confused about whether or not the Constitution could be changed. In his mind, it was an unchangeable document and saying that it could be changed seemed contradictory to this belief.
As conservatives, constitutionalists, liberty lovers or whatever we are, we sometimes treat the Constitution as if it is infallible and flawless. We believe it can’t be changed. We believe that saying it can be changed damages the power of the document. We don’t want to fall into the trap that many others have laid as they attempt to make the Constitution a fluid, spineless document that has no bearing on government action.
However, saying that the Constitution can be changed is not sacrilegious. It doesn’t damage the power of the Constitution. It is, after all, a document created by man. It would be foolish to put it on the level of the Bible. Saying it can be changed is simply being real.
If we couldn’t change the Constitution, the damage done to the Constitution would likely be much greater. If it was unchangeable and the people felt strongly enough that it needed to change, they would eventually revolt and throw the whole thing out. Instead, we’re able to peaceably and lawfully change and update the standard confining government without resorting to revolutionary measures.
So, I explained to this young man that the Constitution can actually be changed through the amendment process, but that this process doesn’t damage the power of the Constitution.
James Madison, commonly known as the Father of the Constitution, said this:
“That government is instituted and ought to be exercised for the benefit of the people; which consists in the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the right of acquiring and using property, and generally of pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety.
That the people have an indubitable, unalienable, and indefeasible right to reform or change their government, whenever it be found adverse or inadequate to the purposes of its institution.”
In other words, James Madison fully expected for the Constitution to need development, updates, change and the like and he wanted to create a provision in the document itself that gave Americans the option to do so–aside from revolution.
Consider, the word “amend” means: “To grow or become better, by reformation, or rectifying something wrong in manners or morals. It differs from improve, in this, that to amend implies something previously wrong; to improve, does not.”
In other words, as time progress, Madison fully expected preceding generations to find flaws in the Constitution, flaws that needed amending. The freedom and ability for the states, in conjunction with Congress, to amend the Constitution, is essential to preserving the Constitution.
If we the people are government’s employers, we should have the power to change their job description if we see that such a change is necessary. This does not damage or hurt the power of the job description; it still is government’s job description. It simply means that time has show exposed flaws in the job description and these flaws need to be remedied.
Amending does NOT imply that the Constitution is completely fluid and changeable upon any emotional whim. The difficulty in amending, should, in itself, indicate the gravity and sobriety inherent in changing the standard government our government. We should take on such a task with trepidation and reverence. It’s no small thing. This does not mean that the Constitution shouldn’t or can’t be amended, but that amending is a sober task.
Amending does NOT imply that the Constitution is completely fluid and changeable upon any emotional whim. The difficulty in amending, should, in itself, indicate the gravity and sobriety inherent in changing the standard government our government. We should take on such a task with trepidation and reverence. It’s no small thing. This does not mean that the Constitution shouldn’t or can’t be amended, but that amending is a sober task.
If, as Americans, we simply look at the Constitution as a job description for government, we’ll find that the idea of amending it makes sense while the idea that it should be fluid and unspecific, doesn’t make sense.
I hope that, as I continue to disseminate this understanding of the Constitution as a job description, more and more Americans will own the role of the employer and appreciate the importance of a job description for government.
Of all people, Americans should understand the employer to employee relationship. And, of all people, Americans should be invested in keeping their government accountable to its job description in order to preserve the precious commodity kept safe by this job description.
Liberty.
The Liberty Belle