Constitutional Perogative

After posting my views Friday on what I’d like from elected officials, Peter sent in the following comment:

“You lost me when you said this, ‘I want a president and a Congress that respects the rights of all, cares for the downtrodden, provides opportunity for all, endorses and expands educational opportunities, builds and repairs infrastructure for today and tomorrow, invests in science and technology, leads global efforts on climate change and human rights, provides universal health care.’

“Where does the US Constitution provide for ANY of that?

“In other words, Murray, you want a Republican to take on all the views of a Liberal Democrat.”

An intriguing thought, Peter. Given that Ronald Reagan raised taxes 11 times, saw the national debt increase from $700 billion to $3 trillion, bailed out Social Security and expanded the federal government, he’d probably fail the acid test of today’s conservatives and Tea Party members. Though he balanced the budget, Richard Nixon implemented Wage and Price Controls, set up the Environmental Protection Agency, and started strategic discussions with Communist China. He surely would not be considered a good Republican. As for Teddy Roosevelt, that great icon of environmentalism, conservation and anti-trust legislation, along with enlightened immigration policies, there’s no way his face would remain on the façade of Mt. Rushmore if conservatives and Tea Party’ers ever get swept into the majority.

It’s hard being any shade of Republican these days. But to get to the specific question Peter asked, “Where does the US Constitution provide for ANY of that?,” it’s right there in Article 1, Section 8: “The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;”

I can’t think of anything more tied into the "general welfare" of our country than providing equal rights and opportunities, education, solid infrastructure, quality health care, support for the less fortunate, investment in our collective future and leadership on the global stage.

Now I’m sure Peter and his similar-thinking patriots would argue that I am interpreting the Constitution. And they’d be right.

Interpretation is a natural and necessary part of keeping our laws current, vibrant and meaningful. It’s like reading and understanding the Bible—no one in the Judeo-Christian world believes “an eye for an eye” is to be taken literally. If we accept that scholars can interpret God’s laws to make them more humane and appropriate to our current age, surely we can accept that modern day jurists and lawmakers can pass judgment on the words of the framers of the Constitution.

What bothers me is the hypocrisy of those who believe their version of the Constitution is the only one that is accurate. Republicans decry activist judges, those who overturn laws passed by Congress. Yet they are seeking to overturn in court the health care reform act duly and legally passed by Congress. Republicans applauded when the Supreme Court threw out the campaign finance law that restricted corporate donations. Why is it acceptable when courts overturn laws Republicans object to, but judicial activism when courts overturn laws Republicans favor, such as anti-abortion legislation?

Democrats bemoan judges who overturn laws they like, as well, which is why when going to the polls Americans need to think long and hard about the judicial appointments their candidates for president and governor are likely to make. We can rid ourselves of undesirable politicians when next they are up for election, but we’re mostly stuck with bad judges for life.