Conflict Within the Bill of Rights
|
| Thomas Jefferson |
When the First Congress convened in 1789, it confronted more than a hundred proposed amendments to the Constitution, largely stirred up by supporters of Thomas Jefferson who feared a strong central government would be too similar to the monarchy we had just discarded. Essentially, Congress dumped these noisy dissatisfactions into the lap of James Madison who had largely written the Constitution, constituting a committee with Madison as its chairman. The first ten amendments thus emerged together as a package, enabling trade-offs and compromises between them; all subsequent amendments have been taken up individually, one by one. Since the First Congress and the Constitutional Convention were largely the same people, much of the durability of the Constitution can be traced to them. And therefore, the ability of the nation to feel its way into a new idea, sometimes retreating and sometimes plunging ahead, has migrated into the hands of the Supreme Court. This result was probably accidental, but nevertheless the power of the Supreme Court was greatly strengthened by default; it alone can tip-toe out of a Constitutional tangle created by momentary impulses.
After duplicates and half-baked ideas were winnowed out, Madison's committee boiled down the wildly disparate proposals into ten amendments, supposedly limited to ten by alluding to Ten Commandments which seemed sufficiently comprehensive to Moses, and presumably to God. Two main principles emerged. The first was that the Constitution should be parsimonious in granting divine, or natural, rights, because what Nature's God had granted was hard to tell but what the judiciary could enforce had limits. And secondly, granting even these few self-evident rights to slaves would likely tear the Union apart.
|
| James Madison |
So, Madison's committee narrowed the legally enforceable definition of human rights to a handful, trying to select those which were so self-evident they could withstand the tension on those charged with enforcing them. When contemplating the problem of extending mandated rights to slaves, however, there was no obvious solution at all. The evasion agreed upon was to limit the Federal Government to enforcing a handful of enumerated powers, while leaving all unspecified matters to the state legislatures. The boundary might shift with time, but without saying so, the Bill of Rights kept the Union out of the main foreseeable trouble. The unmentioned conflict between universal rights and slavery defaulted to the individual states, or whoever, but definitely not to the Federal Government.
That tap-dance held together for nearly a century, and then it didn't and we had a Civil War. During all of that time, the balance of power was steadily shifting from the confederated states to the centralized federal government, and after the Civil War it shifted some more. However, the southern confederation may have been defeated, but it was not exactly reconciled, nor were the former slaves exactly equalized.
|
| Robert E. Lee |
Many post-war expedients were tested to heal these wounds, some of them useful and some, like forcible Reconstruction, disruptive. Two expedients opened new wounds and distracted the country for a century. The first was intentional weakening of the quality and effectiveness of state governments, to the point where it can now be asserted that state government is the weakest part of our whole government structure. Those who prized universality and efficiency, or who sought greater international power, regarded state legislatures as a hindrance; just look who got us into a Civil War. Consequently, corruption and ineffectiveness were privately tolerated in state legislatures, because discrediting state governments made them easier to control. Repairing the resulting imbalance in our overall system is now growing to be one of our greatest problems.
The second response to a sluggish equalization of racial rights was invented by Madison himself. He felt that the ability to migrate from one state to another would discipline any temptation of a state to mis-behave. If your state taxes you unfairly, move. If your state government gets too corrupt, first try to throw the rascals out, but in the last extremity, go somewhere else. This concept has worked magnificently in maintaining national interest rates with appropriate local modifications, and we are about to learn whether it will adequately restrain the half dozen states who have pushed the limits of taxes and borrowing. In the case of former slaves, massive out-migration took a century to happen and then it happened all at once, just after World War II. Wave after wave of slave descendants from the rural South, got on buses and came to the heart of Northern cities. Overwhelming the ability of weakened local governments to cope, city institutions disintegrated, particularly the public school and justice systems. The consequence is continuing disarray in Washington DC, Baltimore, Detroit -- and Philadelphia -- together with a host of smaller cities like Reading, Newark, Paterson, Wilkes-Barre and many others, in all of which the unsustainable wave of immigrants added to local industrial and civic problems which had other causes. So now we have two new problems, weakened state government and disruptive migrations, which in other circumstances tended to mitigate each other, but in this case made each other worse.
|
| Lyndon Johnson |
It took a century for Madison's scheme to break down into war, and Lyndon Johnson was surely quite right to feel a century was long enough to tolerate the dissentions and disunity of enduring that war. If he could not make people love one another, at least he could enforce the law. State governments were not doing it, so he whipped the Congress into taking it on as a Federal duty, by passing the Civil Rights Act. Half a century has passed and there has been progress, but surely not an end to the disunity. State governments have been further weakened, but mass migrations have calmed down. In another half century, the slavery issue and its consequences may fully subside. Meanwhile, the extension of federal power continues, now threatening to extend to the medical profession, the finance industry, the automobile industry, and the Internet. But our Constitution continues to survive more or less intact, into its third century, and we grow increasingly wary of tinkering with it as we watch many other nations fail to achieve its essential quality. Which is, it survives.
(1820)
