Wednesday March 31, 2004 at 6:01 PM
God vs. Country, pt. 2
Appearing in Truth & Justice
On May 5, 1787, James Madison exhibited one of the hallmark behaviors of genius: he showed up early. Having arrived in Philadelphia in advance of the delegates from every other state save Pennsylvania, Madison put his time to good use.
When fellow delegate George Mason finally arrived 12 days later, the Virginians set to work drafting a plan for a federal government. Known as the Virginia Plan, their draft outlined the general organization of government ultimately detailed in The Constitution of the United States.
Dividing the functions of government into three independent branches and then instituting a series of checks and balances to prevent abuses of power, Madison’s vision not only led to the longest lived democracy in history, but also stands as our nation’s single greatest contribution to humankind.
As evidenced by the longevity of the U.S. Constitution, the intelligence, prescience, and wisdom of the framers is beyond debate. Perhaps less appreciated and celebrated however, is another trait that lies at the center of the Constitution’s endurance: humility.
Having arrived at the best form of government they could possibly imagine, the framers still had the imagination to recognize the need for an amendment mechanism that would allow the document to respond to unforeseen issues and circumstances. That mechanism is described in the 143 words of Article V. As is often the case with the Constitution however, the salient portion of the text is even shorter: “The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution…[which] shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States…”
Combine the genius of the document with this almost impossibly high bar for ratification and it is no small wonder that we have taken to amending the Constitution a paltry 27 times since it was drafted by the Convention of 1787 and only 17 times since the addition of the Bill of Rights in 1791.
In our current debate regarding an amendment to ban same-sex marriage, it is instructive to regard both the amendments that have succeeded as well as Bill of Rights is particularly warranted. These include:
- Amendment 11 - Judicial Limits
- Amendment 12 - Choosing the President, Vice President
- Amendment 13 - Slavery Abolished
- Amendment 14 - Citizenship Rights
- Amendment 15 - Race no bar to vote
- Amendment 16 - Income Tax authorized
- Amendment 17 - Senators elected by popular vote
- Amendment 18 - Liquor abolished
- Amendment 19 - Women’s suffrage
- Amendment 20 - Presidential, Congressional terms
- Amendment 21 - Amendment 18 repealed
- Amendment 22 - Presidential Term Limits
- Amendment 23 - Presidential vote for District of Columbia
- Amendment 24 - Poll taxes barred
- Amendment 25 - Presidential disability and succession
- Amendment 26 - Voting age set to 18 years
- Amendment 27 - Congressional pay increases
While eight of the amendments deal with the mechanics of government, two with taxation, and two with a silly experiment to outlaw alcohol, what is particularly striking are the five remaining (#13, #14, #15, #19, and #26) — every one of which seeks to expand the benefits of citizenship to previously excluded groups.
Now whether you support or oppose same-sex marriage, it is beyond debate that an amendment specifically created to exclude a class of citizens from full participation in all the benefits of society would lie well outside the range of the previous 27 amendments. Not that such an argument is sufficient in and of itself, but the fact that the proposed amendment is inconsistent with existing patterns should give all of us particular pause.
