Delegates to the Constitutional Convention gave their assent to the document on September 17th, 1787. Today, I'm scheduled to be the key-note speaker at our University's Constitution Day celebration. Here is the text of my speech. I think it might ruffle a few feathers. What Constitution Are We Talking About Senator Byrd?

On September 17, 1787 all 12 state delegations present at the Philadelphia Constitutional Convention approved the document that they had been working on since May 25th of that year. Of those present at the end of the Convention, 39 of 42 delegates sign it. Today, we celebrate the signing of that document, the oldest written Constitution on the planet and the envy of the world. The Constitution of the United States of America is a model for how governments ought to be organized. It is a model of government so powerful that even The Islamic Republic of Iran, a country founded on the notion that America is the ‘Great Satan’, copied the fundamental structure of government set up in The Constitution.

It is ironic then that this model document for how good government ought to be organized is so little known by our own people. It is doubly ironic that the celebration of Constitution Day was mandated by Senator Robert Byrd, who is a self-proclaimed ‘Constitutional Scholar’ who’s only qualification on the subject seems to be that he has been in the U.S. Senate since the Eisenhower Administration. That, and also the fact that he is a former leader of the Klu Klux Klan.

This University was sent a packet from some organization or another giving us helpful hints on how we ought to celebrate Constitution Day. Included in the packet were a number of statistics, all of them designed to make the point that the average American is woefully ignorant of their own Constitution. To this I will not object. The average America is indeed woefully ignorant of this great document. Any of you who have had the unfortunate experience of taking my American National Government class knows how much I bemoan this fact and, if you passed my class, you are sure to remember one thing, if nothing else—the Preamble to the Constitution of the United States which I force all students to memorize.

But to say that the American people know little about how their government is organized is not really to say a whole lot. This is nothing new. I suspect that the average farmer living on the frontiers of Upstate New York had little knowledge about the Constitution in 1789. I suspect that a meat-packer in Chicago at the turn of the century had little knowledge about the Constitution. I suspect a dirt farmer living in the Oklahoma pan-handle had little knowledge about the Constitution even as Roosevelt held his fire side chats in the 1930s. That is to say, there is nothing new about the majority of the American people taking their Constitution for granted. People are just like that, we have lives to live and things to do. The intricacies of the Supremacy Clause are of little concern when you have kids to feed.

However, what is new in America is that while the masses have always been largely ignorant of the Constitution, it is a very recent phenomenon that elites in our society—those with a college education—also have little knowledge about this document. There was a time in the not too distant past that having a college education meant not only greater upward mobility and a larger income potential, but also meant a greater amount of core knowledge than those without one. Why it is today that educated elites are almost as ignorant of the Constitution as those who did not have the privilege of going to college is something of a mystery to me. But that it is a fact seems clear.

For instance, last year I was downstairs in the (name of building) when some organization or another was having a book sale. It was evident that the books were donated by the Arts and Humanities faculty and among the books I found was an old American National Government textbook. The book dated to the 1950s. Inside, some one had left a copy of one of their exams. Here it is. Let me read a portion of it to you, and you who have taken the same class from me and have complained endlessly about how hard it is please listen carefully.

(Read question I: Explain the entire process involved in preparing, modifying, approving, and superviseing the national budget. Include in your discussion the significance of the various organizations within the executive and legislative branches which play a major role in formulating and implementing the national budget.)

That was question I. You donÂ’t want me to read question II, it is very-very long, and we have limited time here today. But the point is that as college education has gone from being something only the privileged few had access to gaining, to something that we all can do, something was lost. The idea was that opening up the doors of higher education to the masses would make the masses more educated, and to some extent that has happened. That is, that the masses would be more like the educated elite. But the opposite has also happened; today the educated elite are acting very much like the uneducated masses. This is a ubiquitous phenomenon, from the lofty towers of Harvard right down to the local community college you are much more likely to hear conversations about Brittney SpearsÂ’ new child around campus than you are to hear students debating the merits of the flat tax or the epistemology of Plato versus Kant.

Now, let us return to Senator Byrd and elites in the U.S. government in general. They realize, rightly, that the American people—all of them—are woefully ignorant of this great document, the Constitution of the United States. So, what is their answer to it? They pass a law. The federal government of the United States of America requires the (name of university), a state institution, to celebrate Constitution Day.

The grand irony in all of this is that this is an abject violation of the very document which they purport to revere! Why is this? Because the Constitution embodies a number of fundamental principles in it: the first and foremost principle found in the Constitution is that the federal government is one of limited powers. As Hamilton argues in his objection to a Bill of Rights in Federalist #84, there is no need to specify what the federal government should not do, because that list would indeed need be a lengthy one, instead we have a federal government that can do nothing except where they are given permission.

Having a Bill of Rights, the authors of the Federalist papers argued, would imply that the federal government could do things not expressly listed in the Constitution itself. For instance, if there is no provision in the Constitution which authorized the federal government to prohibit free-speech, what is the use of adding a clause which protects speech? WouldnÂ’t that imply that the federal government was one of unlimited powers, only restrained in a few areas instead of a government of limited powers, only authorized to do a few and basic things?

So, where in the Constitution, I ask you, does it give the Congress of the United States the ability to tell a state government what it must do? For that is exactly what is happening here today: the federal government has ordered us to celebrate the Constitution of the United States. The fact that we ought to be celebrating the Constitution of the United States anyway, without this order from on high, is really beside the point. A master may tell his slave to do something that he ought to do anyway, yet the relationship still violates basic principles of human equality.

If the first great principle of the Constitution is one of limited federal power, then the second great principle of the Constitution is the idea of federalism. So, Hamilton, Madison, and Jay lost the Bill of Rights argument. But they did not go down without a fight. Madison, the man most responsible for the Constitution snuck a couple of Amendments in there, just to reemphasize the basic point. Of note, and most relevant to this particular talk, is the Tenth Amendment, which reads simply:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Now, if you actually take the time to read the document—and not do what Senator Byrd did when he went to law school (and what all lawyers actually do) which was to read Court cases about the Constitution—and go home today and read, you know, the actual Constitution itself, then I dare you to find anything in the document which would give the federal government authority to force a state institution to implement this or any other program like it. To do so would be to admit that the very document we are here to celebrate today is utterly meaningless, that it does exactly the opposite of the plain meaning of its very words, and that it means only what we want it to mean.

So, despite the good intention of Senator Byrd and elites in our government that want college educated students to have a deeper understanding of the Constitution, the method they have chosen is ill suited to the task. If they really wanted the American people to know more about the Constitution then I recommend starting with members of Congress first, and then some time in the future moving on to college students, and only then if they could do it without violating the principle of state sovereignty. And to show IÂ’m not all talk, IÂ’m willing to fly out to Washington, D.C. at any time and help Senator Byrd and the other 99 members of the Senate unlearn all the garbage they were taught about the Constitution in Law School.

The Constitution is not a series of cases decided by the Supreme Court, it is a document written in 1787, ratified in 1789, and which has been amended exactly 27 times. WeÂ’ll begin by sitting down and reading the document that all of them like to pull out of their pockets and wave in front of cameras.

I would recommend all of you do the same.

Posted by: Rusty at 08:06 AM | Comments (24) | Add Comment
Post contains 1777 words, total size 10 kb.

1 The one that gives warmaking power to Congress.

Posted by: Downing Street Memo at September 20, 2005 08:09 AM (VhNDM)

2 Yup, Art. I, sec. 8.

Posted by: Rusty Shackleford at September 20, 2005 08:31 AM (JQjhA)

3 I can hook you up with a couple adjunct classes here when you get fired.

Posted by: Leopold Stotch at September 20, 2005 09:19 AM (1DaBi)

4 Sweet. Do you think Nancy, the three kids, and me can crash at your house, too?

Posted by: Rusty Shackleford at September 20, 2005 09:38 AM (JQjhA)

5 Just so IÂ’m clear on this: your not tenured right?

Posted by: Brad at September 20, 2005 09:38 AM (6mUkl)

6 Nope. You think this alters my chances?

Posted by: Rusty Shackleford at September 20, 2005 09:39 AM (JQjhA)

7 I donÂ’t know man, If the PC police track you back to this blog, your dead. You might want to call your brother in law and make sure that fertilizer sales job is still open before you give this speech.

Posted by: Brad at September 20, 2005 09:54 AM (6mUkl)

8 Senator Byrd is talking about that "living" Constitution that says whatever in the hell the liberals want it to say.

Posted by: jesusland joe at September 20, 2005 10:18 AM (rUyw4)

9 Rusty, are you really going to give that speech on a college campus?

Posted by: jesusland joe at September 20, 2005 10:25 AM (rUyw4)

10 Have you forwarded this to Byrd? Oh, and I know of a small conservative liberal arts college in West Tennesse that might hire you.

Posted by: Razorgirl at September 20, 2005 10:29 AM (H+tJ8)

11 You also should mention somewhere the Preamble to the Bill of Rights: The Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution.

Posted by: IO ERROR at September 20, 2005 10:43 AM (+UctD)

12 "The Constitution is not a series of cases decided by the Supreme Court, it is a document written in 1787, ratified in 1789, and which has been amended exactly 27 times." That's brilliant. And it is a remarkably difficult notion to get across to people.

Posted by: Craig McCarthy at September 20, 2005 10:45 AM (WfwK9)

13 The idea of a living document in the shape of the Constitution is not stupid. What is stupid is not recognizing that the document itself is very specific about what that means. If your gonna go down, go down hard and add something about the commerce clause being the tool of the modern day tyrant.

Posted by: Defense Guy at September 20, 2005 10:53 AM (jPCiN)

14 Right DG. and what "privacy" is construed to mean. And what separation of church and state really means. We saw Newt Gingrich speak at UNF last night. Yes, in an academic environment no less. He was really very clear and concise. One strong point he brought up was this [I'll paraphrase, of course]: Stop this effort to drive God out of public life. 91% of the people are actually against the extreme measures being taken to do this and 8% are dictating to the 91%. He made the point that our forefathers acknowledged that our rights came from our creator. If the creator is driven out of our lives then who will our children grow up thinking our rights came from? "The State?" Not good. Not good at all.

Posted by: Oyster at September 20, 2005 01:03 PM (fl6E1)

15 Robert Byrd brains constitution is different from what the founding fathers wrote bobby byrds consits of big goverment and more regulation and uncontroled taxing and spending

Posted by: sandpiper at September 20, 2005 01:58 PM (r8sk+)

16 The dhimmis see the Constitution as either a stepping stool to get over the will of the people, or a stumbling block to thwart their plans, but they do not see it as inviolable.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at September 20, 2005 02:36 PM (0yYS2)

17 Outstanding.

Posted by: Jim at September 20, 2005 05:31 PM (iD0gu)

18 When the Left says that the US CONSTITUTION is a "living document" Of course, they really only mean the parts of they don't like! That things in it that they like - like the part where it guarantees a right to an abortion - (nevermind about looking for it; it's not in the US CONSTITUTION, not in any literal sense) - well that part is WRITTEN IN STONE. SO: to the Left, it not only means what they say it means, whatever they say it measn in NOT living, but permanent. God forbid Roe v. Wade should EVER be re-interpreted; no: you must SWEAR UNDER OATH that Roe v. Wade is SUPERDUPER-PRECEDNT, untouchable and writ in stone. SHEESH. What effin hypocrites! Not only are their policies crappy; the underlying "logic" they use is faulty. They have no consitent alues underlying their ideology EXCEPT belief that an elite knows better what's right then the individual does for himself, AND that the world would be better off if this elite made all the decisions. IOW: collectivism/socialsm/Leftism. They will use whatver meanx - employ any argument at any time (even if it is inconsistent with other arguments they make). But it gets worse: because they will often support policy "B" - like regime change in Iraq - if and only if it's promoted by a fellow traveller. BUT... if a conservative actually does something about it, well, then... the policy msut be bad! I think this is because post-WW2/post-modern Leftsist have have no transcendent universal values, and are relativists. The only wasy they have to measure success is momnetary outcomes. When the Iraq War has a bad day, then the war itself is bad. Which of course aids the enemy. Only a deep belief in transcendent universal values can actually enable a person to have the resolve toi get through tough struggles which are important, if nopt CRUCIAL - like the Iraq War. The pathetic thing is: FDR would be more supprting of Bush and the neocons, then the so-called his of his New Deal. In another light, though, perhaps there is some conection: FDR and Joe Kennedy were enemies. Joe supported the NAZIS. Perhaps Teddy is more like his isolationst father than he is like FDR or RFK or JFK? Perhaps the Left is now more like Alger Hiss than FDR? They are more allied to enforcing the social and economic outcomes they want - and the eltists organizations they control, then actually promoting policies which might actually have better/the best outcomes. They believe in the UN despite the fact that the UN is a useless cesspool of corruption. They believe in affirmative action even though it is astate-sponsored racism. They believe in gun control even though there is not one scintilla of proof that it lowers violent crime. They believe in progressive taxes even though there's evidence that a flat tax is better for growing economies -whcih is the BEST way to helkp poorer people become less poor. They believe in isolationism to protect jobs, even though trade is the BEST single engine to improve standards of living for everyone. OM AND ON. I have come believe these folks of the post-modern Left cannot really be argued with. I know: I was a leftist. Raised a leftis by card-carrying commies. It took the Fall of the Wall for me to admit Reagan was right. And it took seeing that Deng Tsao Ping had improved China by getting rid of Marx and Mao. I had to look reality in the eye, and blink. The problem is most Lefties TURN AWAY, and avert their eyes! They REFUSE to read or watch anything but their Leftist media: the NYTIMES and CNN. If it ain't in the NYTIMEs then it didn't happen to the Left. (They think I'm brainwashed because I read BOTH the NYTIMES and the Wash Times; they don't even realize that THEY are the limited/brainwashed party!) HOW DO WE GET THEM TO OPEN THEIR EYES? Results. Facts on the ground. Results so big even the media can't hide them. Bigger than LOW UNEMLOYMENT - which doesn't get reported much. Bigger than expanded drug benefits for seniors, or improving grades from kids in schools. Bigger than Qaddafy's renunciation of WMD. Bigger than getting Syria out of Lebanon. Bigger than ALL of Bush legislative successes - he's already accomplished more in 5 years than Clinton and his Pop did in 12! It will take withdrawal from a democratic self-sufficient Iraq. And maybe a revolution in Iran. And the toppling of Lil Kim in NOKO. Then maybe maybe MAYBE the Left MIGHT open one eye. Hang in there baby; KEEP FIGHTING THE GOOD FIGHT!

Posted by: reliapundit at September 20, 2005 05:57 PM (9OasS)

19 Whew. Barely any one showed up. I guess my tenure prospects weren't flushed down the tube. But, I did spend some time writing that dayum thing. Would've been nice to at least tick somebody off.......

Posted by: Rusty Shackleford at September 20, 2005 07:12 PM (JQjhA)

20 Pfft, forget them - we enjoyed it. And that is the beauty of online documents; it will remain here to be read by all (pro or con). I can get mad if you want ... ? /TJ

Posted by: TJ at September 21, 2005 08:37 AM (/0bzs)

21 Yeah, but can you issue a fatwa against me?

Posted by: Rusty Shackleford at September 21, 2005 01:22 PM (JQjhA)

22 Rusty I know the pre amble. Got it from schoolhouse rock. want me to sing it for you?

Posted by: Howie at September 22, 2005 12:47 PM (D3+20)

23 We the people in order to from a more perfect union. (background howling of dogs and loud cube neighbor protests) Establish justice and insure domestic tranquility eeeahee Provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare ahhand Secure the blessings of a liberty to ourselves and our posterity (high screeching tone) Do ordain and establish this constitution... for the United Sstates of America... .... for the United States of America

Posted by: Howie at September 22, 2005 01:06 PM (D3+20)

24 The government we have today was shaped by Civil War, the Constitution is merely a fig leaf.

Posted by: DHR at September 28, 2005 05:05 PM (G2kLz)

Hide Comments | Add Comment