December 14, 2010--Constitution Worship

In a little more than two weeks Rand Paul and a host of other ideologues will be taking their seats in Congress.

We do not know for sure how he and others, passionate about cutting the national debt, will vote on a piece of legislation vital to the economic future of the American economy: a bill to raise the national debt limit. Unless this occurs the U.S. will fall into technical default (the sort of thing on a much smaller scale Europeans are worried might happen to Ireland) and our treasury bonds will no longer be viable. Worldwide financial panic would likely ensue.

Rand Paul and many of his soon-to-be colleagues are on record as being opposed to it, threatening to vote "no" and let the chips fall where they may.

More seasoned politicians and commentators say that as soon as Paul and company get to Capital Hill they will begin to like their offices and staffs and perks and will behave like everyone else. In other words, they will forget their commitments and promises and will go along to get along. All to secure goodies for their home districts and begin immediately the process of working to get reelected in two or six years.

I am not so sure.

But there is one thing about which I am absolutely certain--every day we will hear from them about the Constitution.

It will be the touchstone for all debate and discourse. If the Rand Pauls do not see something literally enunciated in the Constitution they will use that seeming absence of guidance and founding-father wisdom as enough reason to resist and oppose.

To them the Constitution is the secular equivalent of the Bible. Actually, they view it as a secular document that embodies biblical tenets and principals. To them it is semi-secular or, better, semi-sacred. And as religious fundamentalists who read the Bible literally they are also constitutional fundamentalists who also read Constitution as literally as they can get away with.

I say "get away with" because the "original" Constitution (including to them the equally sacred first 10 amendments or Bill of Rights) for census enumeration purposes treats blacks as sub human (equal to three-fifths of a white man) and of course relegates women to second class status. Even the Rand Pauls, while clamoring for us to revert to first constitutional principals are not arguing for the reinstitution of slavery (outlawed by the 13th Amendment) or for the repeal of the 19th Amendment which extends the suffrage to women. At least not yet.

They are, though, calling for the repeal of the 14th and 17th Amendments. The former, among other things, grants citizenship to anyone born in the United States, including, ah, the children of illegal immigrants; the latter requires the direct election of senators. Originally, senators were chosen by state governments, not citizen voters; and this gave states more power, in Tea Party Think, than the current system.

This fast and loose relationship to the Constitution's amendments reveals the inner contradictions of the Tea Party movement and its newly elected representatives. To which Constitution are they and we supposed to return and revere? Only the unamended Constitution? That would knock out the Bill of Rights. The Constitution that includes the Bill of Rights and presumably the 13th and 19th Amendments but not the 14th and 17th?

You get the point. These folks are thus semi-constitutional fundamentalists. They hold sacred only that part, repeat part, of the Constitution that they consider fundamental. This presents a consistency problem. If nothing else, Tea Partiers see themselves as consistent and unwavering. But by this pick-and-choose, super-market approach to the Constitution they revel themselves to be anything but.

In a recent New York Times column there was an interesting piece about the long history of Constitution worship. (Linked below.) It showed that not only has there been for centuries this kind of constitutional exegesis that parallels biblical fundamentalism but provides an analysis of why so many Americans uniquely among western nations in hold sacred the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.

Elsewhere nations had state religions--Catholicism, the Church of England, Lutheranism--which helped provide connective national tissue. But this was something our founders, seeking to chart a new course for us separate from the European traditions and institutions they were seeking to overthrow and avoid, explicitly forbid. There would be no monarchy, no nobility, no established religion. So American citizens, from the beginning, sought other things to knit us together as a nation. We have our common language, our flag, our anthem, our patriotic holidays, and other customs. More than anything, though, we have our sacred texts.

And since these texts do not have a translation problem they not subject to the same interpretive needs. Unlike the Bible, which is in Hebrew and Aramaic (Old Testament) and Greek (New Testament), our secular bible is in English and, if we choose, can be visited in the National Archives and read and understood literally.

Sort of.

I say "sort of" because our Constitution, though in clear English, needs lots of interpretation. That is what our courts are there to do. Just yesterday, for example, a federal judge in Virginia ruled that a part of the new Obama health care plan is unconstitutional. He is a conservative of the stripe that a Rand Paul will be eager to confirm, but he needed to interpret the Constitution as he saw fit to came to a conclusion that conservatives, who want to read the Constitution literally, are already applauding.

As they say, we live in interesting times. Come January in Congress, these contradictions and ideological contortions will be on full flagrant display.