Two hundred thirty years ago, a number of remarkable people signed their names to an audacious document, one asserting that there are rights and freedoms that are inherent to humanity (rather than privileges granted by a ruler), and that any governing authority that abridges such freedoms/rights does so illegitimately -- and, on those grounds, declared their independence from the world's then leading political, economic and military power. A decade and change later, the new nation's founding ideals were codified as supreme law in the Constitution, a document which sets concrete limits on the country's government -- whose Bill of Rights sets out a number of things that the government cannot do, is not allowed to do -- and which sets up complementary branches of government both to fulfill distinct functions and, more importantly, to serve as a check on the others. Much everything about that document is designed to serve notice on the governing authorities: Your power is limited. You do not rule by divine right or decree -- you govern (not rule) by the will of the people and in so far as your actions are in accordance with the rule of law, expressed in the Constitution. (When an amendment is introduced that doesn't gibe with same -- i.e., Prohibition -- it ends up clearly failing, as in fact Prohibition did.)
That was remarkable, and audacious. That is what Americans celebrate today -- and if it's not, it should be. (Some of my countrymen, sadly, tend to treat July 4 as they would the Super Bowl or something -- a venue to "rah" for "our team" rather than to reflect on what it means to be an American.) It is what America's truly about, in my opinion. The Constitution, not the flag -- as important a symbol as the flag is -- is the center and guiding principle of America, and I wish some politicians put half as much energy into protecting the Constitution as they do thinking they're protecting the flag.
I don't think it's overstating to say that maintaining our constitutional integrity is the core of America's story. In other words, every nation has a guiding ideal or set of ideals, and the story of its history has as its theme how well it has lived up to or failed to live up to those ideals, to live up to what it means to be itself. Which means that the United States' top priority -- at all times -- is the maintaining of its constitutional integrity, of the codified idea that there are bounds to a government official's power and that he/she cannot legally cross those bounds; if they do, they are outlaws. Perhaps my view is extreme ... but I tend to think constitutional integrity trumps even national security at heart, at core. In other words, if we can't survive without betraying the central idea of what we're about, then we don't deserve to survive.
I've never been one of those who demonize George W. Bush or ascribe base motives to the man. I believe his motives are sincere, that he's doing what he thinks best for the nation. I'm not even necessarily opposed to the U.S. presence in Iraq, though it seems to have been misconceived and mishandled at countless steps along the line. (I often feel that al-Qaida launched the 9-11 attacks for the express purpose of goading the U.S. into war in Iraq, thus serving the twin purpose of galvanizing the Islamic world against the West and removing the largely secularized government of Saddam Hussein to make room for sharia law.) My problem with Bush is, I don't think he feels the priority of constitutional integrity at his gut, in his heart. I don't see him going out of the way to limit his own power -- instead, a theme of this administration seems to have been the advancing of the unchecked power of the executive. So we get a president who signs onto legislation (like the torture prohibition) but adds the caveat that he'll interpret it as he sees fit. So we get the insistence that wiretaps can proceed without warrants (even after the fact, as the law had allowed for), without any congressional check or oversight. So we get a president leaning on the concept of implied executive power, more or less to do whatever he wants. Again -- I don't believe Bush does so out of selfish motive; I honesty, perhaps naively, believe he does so because he thinks it's necessary to protect his country. But whatever his motives, the reality is the same: a compromising of the nation's constitutional integrity. And that is what he's supposed to be protecting.
Put simply, it's not the president's job to protect my life, or yours. It's his job to protect the Constitution of the United States, and to preserve it from any threats ... including from himself. (I'm not necessarily against wiretaps -- with warrants. Or against the financial data collection -- with just cause.) We forget just how much an experiment, a fragile experiment, this constitutional republic is and remains. The experiments' results aren't in and conclusive yet.
Ultimately, to me the definition of a patriotic American is NOT one who waves the flag and blindly assents to everything a presidential administration says and does. A patriotic American is one who thinks long and hard about what it means to be Americans, to be America, and holds the government accountable when it transgresses those concepts -- when the government acts in a way that is not America. So ... a good Independence Day to all. Let's stay independent, OK?
End o' long-winded observations; my apologies to the Canadians and Brits on the f-list.
Sounds & Images: All the Roadrunning (Mark Knopfler and Emmylou Harris)
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
