Have you too been hearing that we no longer have a democracy but instead now have a constitutional republic? That”s the new right wing stance being used to try to justify and explain why it”s OK, for instance, to have the U.S. Senate completely hamstrung by constant threat of filibuster, unable to pass much-needed legislation when the times and circumstances demand action. The Constitution clearly calls for, in Article One, Section Three, paragraph four, the Vice President, acting as President of the Senate only to actually vote in the event of a tie. That”s 50 percent plus one, not 60 percent, by the way. Recently, the radical school board of Texas went as far as to remove all references to the United States being a democracy from their text books, inserting their new name, “constitutional republic.”
It is quite true that the Founding Fathers were divided in their opinion of how far our new democracy would go as far as ensuring equal representation under the law. Some actually advocated a return to a monarchy, claiming the people could not be trusted to rule themselves. Famously, George Washington, in one of the most pure expressions of personal sacrifice and respect for the American people, turned down the appointment to become king. Some of the founders didn”t want women or people of color to be counted or to have the right to vote. Some said the smaller states would have their interests trampled by a simple majority vote. This is why the House of Representatives was based simply upon the population of the state; the more citizens, the more representatives and why the Senate is based not upon population, but instead each state gets two senators, no matter how many citizens they have. California, with 33 million citizens gets the same number of senators as South Dakota, with about 0.6 million, giving South Dakotans roughly 30 times the representation in the Senate.
The Constitution was a compromise in which all of the founders, who risked their lives by joining the revolution, were able to come to an agreement that they could abide by. From the very first, they had the humility to realize that they could not foresee every little detail or the future, so they created the mechanism to make amendments to their document, the first 10 of which followed almost immediately as the Bill of Rights.
As I”m about to turn 60, I realize I was taught at every level that we live in a democracy. Since my childhood my country has been at war in every corner of the globe trying to spread democracy. Never once have I heard any president try to justify our invasion of a country by saying we want to bring a constitutional republic to them instead. Ah, but now that the filibuster has gone from something used only once or twice a decade to something that is invoked on virtually every bill proposed in the Senate, this is the new rationalization being used by some to try to justify using a mechanism that clearly does not exist in the Constitution.
As far as I know, the Constitution is not like ordering dinner for four, where you get to choose one from column A and two from column B. You either believe in the Constitution or you don”t. If you insist on your right to bear arms you must also insist that we don”t hold people indefinitely without charges and legal representation, or inflict cruel and unusual punishment as Liz and Dick Cheney now advocate. Years ago I read Kafka”s “The Trial” and took comfort in knowing nothing like that could ever happen here. Until now, that is. When we ignore parts of the Constitution to suit our political stance, we are in fact, abridging the Constitution. My question is simply, Do you believe in our Constitution and our democracy, or are you willing to give it all up for your political views? I hope the vast majority of Americans would answer no.
Lowell Grant is a weekly columnist for the Record-Bee. E-mail him at c21vintage@aol.com.
