| From: | Doctor Doom <jch8169@*******.TAMU.EDU> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | New Installment in Continuing Lecture Series (II)... |
| Date: | Tue, 18 Apr 1995 05:13:03 -0500 |
Add to this already dubious view most Americans hold concerning their
government with the idolization of the concept of the Individual in the
American culture.
America emerged at a point in the Enlightenment when the philosophical
discourse was the most closely attending to and lionizing of the Individual in
or against mass society. Exempli gratia: Rousseau's radical ideas contained
within "Social Contract" (popular excerpt: "Man is born free, and
everywhere
he is in chains.") on the relationship between individual and government as
well as the claiming of the inherent essential goodness of the common man;
Locke's assertions of political and religious liberties which are indissoluble
from individual by merit of his nature as a Man such that the government may
not transgress against such inherent rights; and Adam Smith's "Inquiry Into
the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations" (published in 1776) outlined
his economic theories, collectively named capitalism, which clamored for a
market system composed of individuals within a milieu of free competition free
from "artificial" governmental barriers and similar "interference"
which
impinges upon the latitude of financial action participant individuals in the
economy enjoy.
American culture idolizes the individual. Coupled with that the American
concept of a Manifest Destiny which constantly pushed the country towards the
Pacific Ocean. The individualistic pioneer spirit is the source of much myth
and folklore in America, laden with the symbol of the man who strikes out on
his own and braves the wilds and dangers and shall, by force of will, bend
them to his desire.
Also in that "drang nach Westen" settlement often outstripped civilization,
and the rule of law experienced a particularly belated arrival to many of the
outlying areas. The government was not in a position for many, many years to
police the great abundance of frontier lands gradually populated as settlement
drove west. The frontier farmer, the mountain man, the gold-seeking settler
all faced the wilds alone and unsupported save by those in his immediate
proximity. One against the world of dangers without. From this developed the
impression, by necessity that were a man to protect himself, his family, and
his property he had to be prepared to take matters into his own hands, lest he
be preyed upon by brigands and thieves, as the government couldn't (or, as been
claimed by some, wouldn't) do it for him. Authority invariably derived from
the barrel of a firearm in such instances, and in this regard many identify
with the sentiment expressed by Thomas Carlyle, "Such I hold to be the genuine
use of Gunpowder: that it makes all men alike tall. Nay, if thou be cooler,
cleverer than I, if that have more /Mind/, though all but no /Body/ whatever,
then canst thou kill me first, and art the taller."
[from _Sartor Resartus: Life and Opinions of Herr (Diogenes) Teufelsdroeckh_,
Book II, Chapter VIII: Center of Indifference]
Heroes to Americans are typically unorthodox, strong individuals who do not
shirk from violence and willingly defy accepted conventions and regulations
in pursuit of their /own/ just goals.
A sheriff verses a gang of marauding brigands. An activist lawyer crusading
against a corrupt governmental system. The lone consumer taking on the mighty
corporation. The Rebellion against the Evil Galactic Empire. Individuals with
quirks, flaws, but determination against the hordes in suits or uniforms, but
faceless masses. So it was with the American Revolution where the colonies
could not for a lengthy time field a traditional European-style army had to
depend upon the legendary Minute Men and their guerilla tactics against the
straight-row marching, regimented Redcoats.
Rebellion enjoys an enduring endearing sentiment American society, although
there are limits to the permissiveness with which it is received. Some
maintain that rebellion is itself a noble act, and thus to rebel for merely
the sake of doing so is to self-justify an act. This may be said to be
akin to the earlier spirit of defiance which causes prohibited acts/things
to be popular.
III. The Purpose of the Constitution, Strengths & Weaknesses ---------------
Why not "modernize" the Constitution?
'Tis quite possible that the motivation driving such an inquiry devolves from a
essential misconstruing of the purpose of the Constitution.
Some revile it on the basis of the brevity of the document, and above all, the
lack of specifics pertinent to contemporary circumstances. Such proceeds from
a misconstruing of the purpose of the Constitution and the anteceding Bill of
Rights.
The purpose of the Constitution, or rather, the Bill of Rights, was/is to
provide various postulate or guiding principles in the execution of government
and the quantification of the role 'twixt the government and the governed
rather than iterate upon applications of these principles or guidelines
specific instances. It is not a Code of Laws in the same sense as was
Amorites' Code of Hammurabi (c.1792-1750 BC), the Byzantine /Codex Justinianus/
AD 529 (Medieval Europe's chief legal text), the Prussian King Frederick II's
Political Testament of 1752 (more an attempt at definitive interpretation and
legal principle than a code /per se/), and post-revolutionary France's vaunted
Napoleonic Code of (still in effect in areas today).
Some claim that the broad terminology (or "skeletal," from one elementary
school text) is the strength of the document such that it allows for
flexibility in interpretation or re-interpretation as the need arises.
One vicissitude encountered in this approach (one adopted, I strongly suspect,
moreso as an effort to present ideas which all assembled to agree upon rather
than a premeditated plan of action), as astutely observed by Herr Hayden, is
that what truly qualifies as necessity in such modification or re-evaluation
of interpretation has become decidedly lax in practice. Freedom of Speech has
been stretched to exceedingly broad circumstances, to include /pan-handling/
of all things. I seek not to challenge an individual's right or not to
pan-handle (beg), but does it truly fall 'neath the Right of Free Speech?
There were allowances integrated into the document to allow for modification in
the future, to be certain. But "tampering" is woefully unpopular on the whole,
and most would balk at the suggestion for a wholesale rewriting of a document
which commands such awe and reverence from such a large segment of the populace
to such a degree that it may only be compared to a pseudo-holy veneration.
TANGENT ----------------------------------------------------------------------
This respect and esteem is of such a magnitude that some have naively declared
to me (in a discussion during the old Flag Burning controversy) that they would
not be in favor of an Amendment prohibitive of Flag Burning as no part of the
Constitution has e'er been contradicted by subsequent legislation, id est, it
has only expanded and grown, not pruned earlier precepts. Now, whatever one's
stance on Flag Burning, such a statement is patently untrue. Through the
process of amending we presently enjoy the direct election of Federal Senators,
a Negroes are no longer counted as 3/5th citizens for the purposes of tallying
population representation, and Prohibition was passed and repealed with
Amendments XVIII and XXI, respectively, just to iterate a few.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In any case, given the nigh paranoia and individualism which appears so much
the norm in the American psyche and mindset, the modification or alteration of
the "only thing that stands between us and tyranny" inspires fury and fear in
many citizens.
Some feel the principles, composed to a sincere effort to endure the test of
time rather than become ensnared in merely contemporary and insufficiently
visionary specifics, have failed in their task and require removal or revision.
Opposing camps claim that the principles are more than adequate, if only
various groups would not insist upon such dynamic moment-to-moment
reinterpretation. To this end some have proposed quantification and
qualification of many of these meritorious principles, citing the fact that
due to the lack of definitive and specific wording in many passages of the
Constitution, the very strength of re-interpretation folds back 'pon itself
and allows for vehement disagreement and factionalization over competing
schools of thought.
The apparent result, for many of the groups concerned, is paralysis and
stagnation, where, in attempting to please everyone, one succeeds in pleasing
no one. Such is the nightmare for a modern Constitutional Convention.
Trepidation of such an event is torn between a resulting government so
hamstrung and impotent by competing interest groups and assorted factions
as to lack the ability to rule and a tyranny of one such group which shall
impose its views upon the others. Therefore, some maintain that the only
security lies in electing not to alter the document, whereas others would
discard it entirely.
Whatever course one elects to follow ultimately, even if it is to retain the
/status quo/, it necessarily requires the dissatisfaction of other elements in
modern American society. The Revolution or Gurth's proposed Revision, should
it occur within our lifetimes, shall not cause all to be happy, and shall
entail the impinging by one or more groups upon one or more other factions'
beliefs in an effort to arrive at a solution to the perceived paramount
problem(s). That is to say that not all problems shall (or perhaps be
practicable to) be solved, and new ones shall possibly be created, but one can
but hope for a beneficial balance of pro and con to be achieved.
Colonel Count von Hohenzollern und von Doom, DMSc, DSc, PhD.
Doom Technologies & Weapon Systems -- Dark Thought Publications
>>> Working on solutions best left in the dark.
<<<
[ Doctor Doom : jch8169@*******.tamu.edu ]
^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^
"Freedom has many flaws and our democracy is imperfect, but we have never had
to build a wall to keep our people in."
-- President John F. Kennedy, 26 June 1963
