Constitution Day

September 17 is Constitution Day. In my post last year (Sick, Constitution Day, Lenders, Palin on Hannity), I was somewhat ambivalent about the American constitution. I wondered if we should view it as an absolute in the war against terror, since those were the days when domestic wiretapping and the Patriot Act were in the news. And, while I sympathized with the framers' goal of preventing an all-powerful State, I thought that the separation of powers kept things from getting done.

One year later, what do I think? There were town-hall meetings all across the county, and I've watched more than once that scene in which an attractive woman in her 30's boldly asked a befuddled Senator Arlen Specter when he will defend the Constitution of the United States. Lately, when the Right mentions the Constitution, it has in mind the Tenth Amendment: the federal government being limited, and certain powers being reserved for the states and the people.

Strangely, when this lady was on Chris Matthews' Hardball, she didn't object to the existence of Medicare, even though nothing in the Constitution gives the federal government the power to interfere in health care. And the Tenth Amendment states that the powers not given to the federal government are reserved to the states and the people. Maybe she should have said that she's not against a program like Medicare, as long as it's a program of the states, not the feds, as each state handles health care in its own way.

I also thought about the First Amendment this morning when I read Polycarp's post, Christian Legitimization of the Assassination of President Obama. Polycarp talked about the Right's hatred of President Obama, and how that could lead to an assassination attempt. Racism may be a factor among some of his haters, but not among all. They see Obama as a wannabe dictator, someone who is expanding the reach of the federal government, thereby threatening their freedoms. Their point of view is legitimate in the market-place of ideas, and our framers wanted free speech. But what happens when that speech becomes hateful and inflammatory?

There's potential danger when we allow people to say anything they want, but free speech can also keep our leaders in check. Glenn Beck exposing the President's czars and ACORN has led to correction of those problems (if you see it as a "correction"). And it's interesting that Bush changed his war policy after all the criticism that he received.

Overall, the Right and the Left pretty much pick and choose what parts of the Constitution they want to emphasize. The Right dislikes Canadian anti-hate speech laws on free speech grounds, yet it wants to limit porn because it can encourage people to misbehave sexually. The Right loves the Second and Tenth Amendments, whereas the liberal Warren Court added teeth to the right to privacy and the right of criminals not to incriminate themselves. The Right, however, views these as a hindrance to law enforcement.

So I guess I find myself in the same place as last year: I like the Constitution because it protects our freedoms from the government. Yet, I wonder if lines should be drawn, and if so, where?