Page Two: Original Intentions
What the framers meant by democracy – plus, how to put your money where your vote is
By Louis Black, Fri., May 19, 2006
When talking about our government, it is almost always necessary to remind folks that we live in a constitutional republic, not a democracy. The difference is that, in a democracy, the majority rules outright; in a republic, it still rules, but there are built-in protections and considerations for the minority. Obviously, there are many ways to read and understand the Constitution. Stating that there is only one obvious reading, or that all it takes to interpret it is common sense, reflects ideology instead of judgment.
Considering the intent of those who drafted the Constitution is illuminating. This is not the same as being fanatically faithful to "original intent" – which is just a hot right-wing brand that, along with terms like "judicial activism" and "unprecedented obstruction," is without meaning, used to present arguments as objective, historic, and morally superior and thus cloaking their actual partisan pandering.
Consider the conditions under which the Constitution was written – with great reluctance, if only because the Confederation was so clearly not working. Thus, the document was very carefully constructed, with consideration given to the colonies' history and all the hot-topic arguments of the time.
Many of the early colonists were fleeing religious intolerance in Europe, Christian-on-Christian repression. Yet when they arrived here, their previous experiences didn't prevent them from creating their own religiously oppressive governments.
Others were looking to start a new life or to find opportunity. Although a middle class was growing and representative government was slowly taking shape, Europe mostly adhered to a rigid, aristocratic class system. To whom you were born frequently determined your life choices and options. Even though Great Britain was one of the more adventurous at expanding citizens' rights, it still had a strong class system in place and had also proved uninterested in enfranchising colonists.
Many of the colonists had just fought for their liberty against a capricious, disconnected, seemingly uncaring ruler an ocean away. They had revolted because they felt they had little recourse in terms of their ability to disagree and protest. Laws and taxes could be changed on a whim; class and relationship to power were always considerations when laws were applied.
The previous 30 years of revolutionary activity in the 13 colonies had been accompanied by differing concerns, and debate among the colonists that had been as intense, divided, and opinionated as the one mounted against British rule.
Thus, by design, the Constitution is a living document for a living, evolving government, designed not just to accommodate but to facilitate the fluidity of the government – structured both to absorb and disregard the ever-shifting bases and biases of power and ideology in this country. Change is not just allowed, but desired, in the government's overall agenda, as well as in relation to who is in control. There was a careful balance of power, divided among the three equal and independent branches of government. Complementing this is an extensive and considered series of checks and balances. Arguing that "original intent" freezes the Constitution as it was in the past ignores its design in ludicrous and destructive ways.
Suggesting the importance of intent is not to argue for faithfully following whatever the framers said or meant. Protecting states' rights was the single most important consideration at the time, for example, though over the years the issue has become far less important. The framers brilliantly considered and analyzed government purpose, function, and design. It is worth meditating on what they said, wrote, and reasoned.
Although committed to some kind of "universal" suffrage and citizen input, the framers were concerned about the instincts of the "mob" – the fickle nature of public opinion. Therefore, they tried to immunize the day-in, day-out government against the voters by limiting their ability to directly influence or override legislators.
Having the people vote for the best candidate, and then allowing this candidate to govern relatively unhampered by shifting opinions, is a key constitutional design element. House members are more subject to the will of the people because of their terms. Senators, however, were given six-year terms specifically to remove them from the daily court of public opinion, so they could stay committed to serving their ideals and serve the long-term interests of the country.
What is clear is that the Constitution's drafters did not want too much power to accumulate in any branch, nor for any branch to become subservient to any other branch. They insisted on an independent judiciary with broad powers. The flow of power and political agenda was clearly designed to be ever-evolving and changing; finally, any number of safeguards were put in place to protect the people, the government, and the country from democracy.
Whenever you hear some politician or pundit complaining that the courts have ruled against the will of the people or that the majority of people oppose Congress' action on some issue, then you know the Constitution is working.
Next column: Why citizen propositions, term limits, campaign-spending "reforms," direct democratic action, and all kinds of other cool-sounding reforms really pervert and eat away at the Constitution.
Lately there seems to be a lot of concern, confusion, and questioning as to the integrity and expressed opinions of the Chronicle and its writers. The Chronicle rate card has long been posted and is available to all, without restriction on one's beliefs or funding source. Remember: If you don't like something you read in the Chronicle, the only thing keeping you from changing it is your own cheapness:
'Chronicle' Staff and Content Rate Card
(No prices guaranteed, but are dependent on issue)
• Chronicle Endorsement: $100
• Getting the Chronicle Editorial Board to Change Its Position (Pre-Endorsement Publication): $250
• One Positive Mention in Michael King's Column ("Point Austin"): $100
• A Whole Michael King Column: $500
• A Positive Story in "Naked City": (price varies depending on writer and topic)
• Photo in News Section: (varies)
• Running Paid-For Story in Chronicle: $250
• Getting an Ex-Chronicle Writer to Submit a Story Tailored to Your Specifications: (varies)
• "Page Two": (Come on, are you kidding!?! Just ask!)
For campaigns that like to season their rhetoric, The Austin Chronicle staff can craft a rant to fit:
• Adding an Undercurrent of Racism, Sexism, and/or Homophobia: $100
• Tailoring Hate/Bigotry to Your Specifications: (negotiable)
• Arts Feature: $400
• Positive Arts Feature: $750
• Positive Film or Music Review: $100
• Music Recommended: $75
• SXSW Picks and Sleepers: (price must be negotiated with Music editor)
• Positive Restaurant Review: $250
• Positive Book Review: $5
All rates are for one-time only; ask about our discount for multiple issues.
The above rates are just the Chronicle's charges; most writers, photographers, and editors also demand a payment. These must be negotiated with the appropriate parties.
In any circumstance, the Chronicle is willing to reverse its editorial position for an additional 50% on top of either the card rate or the actual billing, whichever is greater, for the campaign being run by the opposition/opponent.
