澳门六合彩历史记录

澳门六合彩历史记录

• Your potential. Our purpose.
• Macomb
• Quad Cities
• Online
• APPLY NOW

澳门六合彩历史记录 Home > News > Lecture Archive > Archive

"The Constitution鈥擨ts Fate Depends on Civic Leaders," by Rick Hardy, Chair of the Political Science Department

(The sixth annual College of Arts and Sciences John Hallwas Liberal Arts Lecture, Sept. 15, 2008)

Preface

Many years ago, a young sports reporter interviewed legendary basketball coach John Wooden. The reporter asked Coach Wooden to identify his single greatest accomplishment. Anticipating that Coach Wooden might mention his ten NCAA basketball championships at UCLA, or being the first person inducted into college basketball鈥檚 Hall of Fame as both a player and a coach, or receiving the Presidential Medal of Freedom, or any number of notable accolades, the reporter was surprised by Coach Wooden鈥檚 immediate retort. As quick as a hiccup, Coach Wooden blurted, 鈥淚 am most proud of the fact I am first, foremost, and always a teacher.鈥� When the puzzled reporter asked, 鈥淲hy would you say that, Coach?鈥�, John Wooden immediately fired back: 鈥淵oung man, you ask me why I teach? Where else could you find such splendid company?鈥�

That is exactly how I feel tonight. I too am most proud of the fact that I am a teacher鈥攁 teacher at my beloved alma mater, Western Illinois University. And just look around鈥攚here else could I find such splendid company? It doesn鈥檛 get any better than this!

President Goldfarb, Provost Thomas, Associate Provost Dallinger, Members of the Board of Trustees, Dean Levi, Dr. and Mrs. Hallwas, Dr. Simmons, Distinguished members of the Hallwas Lecture Committee, fellow faculty, staff, alums and, most importantly, the great students at 澳门六合彩历史记录鈥攇ood evening and thanks for attending the 2008 Hallwas Lecture.

It is a distinct honor to have my name associated with the great John Hallwas, a true Renaissance man鈥攁 gifted teacher, scholar, raconteur, civic leader, historian, and the most prolific writer our university has ever produced. I am equally privileged to have my name associated with the previous Hallwas Lecturers鈥擩ohn Hallwas (2003), Charles Helm (2004), Karen Mann (2005), Tracy Knight (2006) and Alvin Goldfarb (2007). They have set our academic bar very high.

Thank you for the wonderful introduction and kind words. It makes me feel more important than I really am. In actuality, nobody accomplishes anything significant without a support cast. First and foremost, I want to recognize and thank my dear wife, Linda. Forty years ago, we started our married life together in a two-room apartment in East Village, married student housing, right here on this campus. She alone knows the financial struggles and the great sacrifices we made to get me through college. Without her unwavering support, great typing skills, and encouragement, I would not be here today. Thank you, Linda. Second, I am grateful to Western Illinois University and the myriad opportunities it has provided and continues to provide me. I was blessed to have some truly outstanding professors, educators who challenged and inspired me in countless ways. And I am equally blessed to work with such fine administrators, colleagues, alums and outstanding students.

Who could have imagined that the frightened, awe-struck teenager who first walked through Sherman Hall so many decades ago鈥�that first-generation college student who wondered if he could pay for his education, let alone compete in the classroom鈥�who had never seen a real-life Ph.D. and who truly thought that professors wore mortarboards to class鈥�would be standing here today, delivering the Hallwas Lecture on the 50th anniversary of our college. Miracles do happen. Thank you, Western!

Purpose

A great deal of thought went into selecting the topic of tonight鈥檚 lecture鈥斺�淭he Constitution鈥擨ts Fate Depends On Civic Leaders.鈥� There are many interrelated factors that drew me to this particular title and topic. First, the subject of constitutional law has long intrigued me. The seeds of this fascination were sewn several decades ago by several fine political science professors at Western鈥擠on Marshall, Charles Leonard, and David Frier; and over the years I have continued to study the Constitution and develop a variety of public law courses. Second, the topic comports nicely with our Constitution Day celebration. As you may know, in 2005 U.S. Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia secured passage of a law that requires all educational institutions receiving federal funding to honor our Constitution annually on or near its birthday, September 17. This lecture, plus copies of the U.S. Constitution and ancillary materials, are offered in the spirit of that law. Third, I sought a topic that would highlight the importance of a liberal arts education鈥攖he heart of any great university. As will be noted shortly, the Framers of the Constitution were well grounded in the liberal arts, and the masterpiece that they created reflects the wisdom of the classics. Finally, the Constitution is solid rock upon which our Republic is built. We Americans are a diverse group of people; we come in many packages. Among our body politic are people of virtually every nationality, ethnicity, religion and culture. While we often have profound disagreements over politics, religion, art, music and lifestyles, we nevertheless have at least one thing in common鈥擳he Constitution of the United States. It is, I believe, the proverbial glue that holds us together as a nation.

Tonight, let us briefly turn attention to the Founders, the Constitutional Convention, and, of course, the Constitution. Let us highlight some of the Constitution鈥檚 most striking features, demonstrate its flexibility, examine how it has changed, and speculate about its future. And, like everything else in America, you are to form your own opinions on the topic.

Overview of the Constitution

Our Constitution is now 219 years old. It is the oldest, written, nation-state constitution in operation today. The document is remarkably parsimonious. It contains a 鈥淧reamble,鈥� a short introduction, exclaiming its lofty purpose (鈥淲e, the People of the United States鈥�do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America鈥�). Ironically, the Preamble has never been used as the basis for any Supreme Court ruling. The document next contains seven 鈥淎rticles,鈥� or content subdivisions, and just 27 Amendments or formal alterations (the first ten of which came with the Bill of Rights and just 17 since 1791). Excluding the Founders鈥� signatures, the entire document, including amendments, contains 7,606 words. Had you read today鈥檚 Chicago Tribune鈥檚 sports section, you would have read more words than are contained in the U.S. Constitution. Yet, despite its longevity and brevity, our Constitution remains a durable, functioning framework upon which our government is built.

In 1787, Framers gathered in Philadelphia鈥檚 Independence Hall ostensibly for the 鈥渟ole and express purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation.鈥� The Articles of Confederation, created in 1781, represented the states鈥� weak attempt to establish a national government. The Articles鈥� problems were manifold. The 13 states retained their own sovereignty. Each state could coin its own money, negotiate treaties, impose restrictions on trade, and favor its own citizens. The national government had no executive branch, the judicial branch鈥檚 jurisdiction was limited to prize and piracy cases, and the legislative branch was powerless to collect taxes鈥攖hus we had no effective army or navy to protect the people and our economic interests. Given the glaring weaknesses of the Articles, it is easy to see that the Delegates quickly dismissed the Articles and moved to craft a new national government.

Each of the states, save Rhode Island, sent delegates to the convention. Although some 73 delegates were named, only 55 ever attended the convention, and just 39 signed the completed document. Delegates ranged in age from 26 (Jonathan Dayton of New Jersey) to 81 (the venerable Benjamin Franklin of Pennsylvania), with an average of 43 years. Most of the 55 delegates had considerable political experience. Eight were signers of the Declaration of Independence, 44 served in the Continental Congress, six had served as state governors, and most had served in their respective state legislatures.

Naturally, much attention has been given to the delegates鈥� race, religion and economic status. All were white males. There were 54 Protestants and one Roman Catholic. Thirty-two of the 55 delegates were attorneys, eight were merchants, three were medical doctors, two were college presidents, about two dozen owned slaves, and most were relatively quite wealthy. Indeed, arguably the richest delegate was the presiding officer, George Washington. Viewing the Founders through today鈥檚 lenses, it is quite understandable why many Americans fixate on the demographic characteristics of the Founders and why some critics label them exclusionary elitists. Whether or not our Founders were truly representatives of the people or had the willingness to put the public interest above private interests has long been the subject of debate, witness the provocative writings of Charles A. Beard (An Economic Interpretation of the Constitution, 1913), Robert E. Brown (Charles A. Beard and the Constitution, 1956), or Forrest McDonald (We the People, 1976).

Influence of Liberal Arts

However, one aspect of our Framers that is often overlooked is their solid grounding in the liberal arts. When we speak of liberal arts, we are referring to a body of knowledge that pertains to general cultural concerns, such as history, philosophy and language, as opposed to technical training or learning a trade. As a whole, the delegates were highly educated. Nearly all began their education in the home, learning to read Biblical passages. Most received formal schooling or private tutoring in Latin or Greek, and many attended college. Indeed, nearly 30 of the 55 delegates were college graduates. There were some notable exceptions, such as George Washington who only had about five years of formal schooling, but he too valued books and was familiar with some of the classics.

The classical education of the period emphasized seven liberal arts鈥攌nown as the 鈥渢rivium鈥� and the 鈥渜uadrivium.鈥� The 鈥渢rivium鈥� (Latin, meaning the place where three roads meet), or the lower division of the liberal arts, consisted of grammar, logic and rhetoric. The 鈥渜uadrivium鈥� (Latin, meaning where four roads join), was the higher division of the liberal arts, which included arithmetic, geometry, astronomy and music.

There is clear evidence that most of our early leaders were avid readers. Recall Jefferson鈥檚 later quip, 鈥淚 cannot live without books (1815).鈥� Jefferson, Madison, Hamilton, Adams and other contemporaries frequently quoted the classics in their political debates and personal correspondence. This too was the beginning of the Age of Enlightenment, when intellectuals throughout Western culture strove to understand human nature and advance seemingly radical social and political reforms. The Founders were quite familiar with English philosopher Francis Bacon and his belief in 鈥渟cientific discovery.鈥� According to Bacon, it was possible to observe nature, discover immutable laws, engage human reason, and apply it to society.

While the Founders appeared intellectually eclectic, there were several common threads that profoundly influenced their thinking and actions. They were: 1) Classical Republicanism, 2) Natural Rights Philosophy, and 3) Judeo-Christian Tenants.

Classical Republicanism

The Founders were quite familiar with ancient Greek and Roman culture and history. Among the early Greek philosophers, historians and orators they admired included Plato, Aristotle, Thucydides, Plutarch, Demosthenes, Homer and Polybius. The Founders were particularly intrigued with the Roman Republic (circa 509 to 27 B.C.) and the chronicles of Cicero, Virgil, Horace and Justinian. Most importantly, the Founders were taken by the Greek and Roman philosophy that would later be termed 鈥渃lassical republicanism.鈥� Under classical republicanism, the political culture places public interest above private interest, and promotes the common good through moral education and the civic virtue of its citizens. Civic virtue encompassed the essential qualities of fairness, honesty, integrity, compassion, generosity, courage, responsibility, accountability, moderation and self-control.

Examples of this classical republican influence upon our early American leaders are legion. The authors of the Anti-Federalists Papers (those who opposed the ratification of the U.S. Constitution) published under the pseudonyms of Roman heroes, such as 鈥淐ato鈥� (George Clinton-NY), 鈥淏rutus鈥� (Robert Yates-NY) and 鈥淐entinel鈥� (Samuel Bryan-PA). Likewise, The Federalist Papers (85 essays authored by Alexander Hamilton-NY, James Madison-VA and John Jay-NY supporting the ratification of the Constitution) were anonymously penned under the name 鈥淧ublius鈥� (the sage Roman consul, known as 鈥渢he Friend of the People,鈥� who instituted the popular vote and exempted the poor from taxes). Perhaps the most revered Roman consul was Cincinnatus, the leader who placed public service ahead of personal gain and voluntarily relinquished power to return to his farm. George Washington, upon stepping down as President, was often referred to as 鈥淎merica鈥檚 Cincinnatus.鈥�

Natural Rights Philosophy

It is plainly evident the Founders were keenly influenced by the Natural Rights philosophies of Thomas Hobbes, John Locke and Rousseau. The recurring theme among these philosophers was the belief that humans once lived in a 鈥渟tate of nature鈥� where they had complete freedom. But life in this state of nature was uncertain and chaotic at best. As Hobbes pessimistically theorized, life in the state of nature was 鈥渟olitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short.鈥� According to these theorists, there was nothing in the state of nature to protect their lives or their natural rights to life, property or liberty. To live, let alone progress, the people entered into a compact with the sovereign, but could never relinquish certain natural rights. For Hobbes, the fundamental right was the right to 鈥渓ife鈥�. For Locke, natural rights included the rights to worship, voice their concerns to government, and own property. And for Rousseau, when humans entered into the social compact with the sovereign, they agreed to give up complete unbridled freedoms in exchange for civil liberties鈥攍iberties within the law.

This natural rights philosophy was the cornerstone for The Declaration of Independence in 1776. If Thomas Jefferson were alive today, he would likely be charged with plagiarism, because it was painfully obvious that he had borrowed from the natural rights theorists, especially John Locke. When Jefferson states, 鈥淕overnments were instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed鈥︹�� Locke鈥檚 influence was apparent. Similarly, when Jefferson writes about 鈥渃ertain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness鈥︹�� (Note how Jefferson substituted Locke鈥檚 notion of 鈥減roperty鈥� for 鈥淧ursuit of Happiness,鈥� suggesting to critics that Jefferson did not want common people to get the idea they may be entitled to the Founders鈥� property). We will see how the 5th and 14th Amendments to the Constitution would substitute this latter phrase, mandating 鈥淣o person shall be denied the right to life, liberty and property without due process.鈥� The 9th Amendment to the Constitution also reveals this natural rights influence, 鈥淭he enumeration in this Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.鈥�

Judeo-Christian Teachings

Finally, the Founders were influenced by Judeo-Christian teachings. As noted, many of the Founders had learned to read from Biblical scripture. Moreover, many colonial colleges required students to translate passages of the Bible into Greek and Latin as a condition of admission. Recall the reference to the Deity in the Declaration of Independence: 鈥溾��they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights鈥︹�� The Framers often quoted the Ten Commandments, the Sermon on the Mount, and other passages that emphasized love, charity and forgiveness. Benjamin Franklin spoke of Providence when he noted, 鈥淕od governs the affairs of men.鈥� The inscription on the Liberty Bell, 鈥淧roclaim Liberty throughout the Land,鈥� stems from the book of Leviticus. Hence, there is clear indication of the Framers belief in a higher power.

In sum, the Framers of the Constitutional Convention were well grounded in the liberal arts. They were generally well read. They respected history, and drew heavily upon philosophy and religion. This is readily apparent when one examines the content of the Constitution.

Basic Features of the Constitution

The enormity of the task facing the Framers in Philadelphia in the summer of 1787 is perhaps best encapsulated by James Madison in the Federalist #51 (February 6, 1788), 鈥淚n framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the chief difficulty lies in this: You must first enable the government to control the governed, and in the next place oblige it to control itself.鈥� This is the question that has long perplexed the architects of government and the lovers of liberty alike. How do we create a government strong enough to govern the people, but not so strong that it abridges our basic freedoms? How was this to be accomplished?

The Framers were practical men who borrowed extensively from a variety of sources. It is impossible in this forum to detail the roots of every provision in the Constitution. Suffice it to say, the document is highly eclectic. One can find significant trace elements of the Magna Carta (1215), The British Petition of Rights (1628), the English Bill of Rights (1689), the Virginia Statute of Religious Freedom (1786), early state constitutions, and the aforementioned philosophers.

A few years back (2001), Justice Antonin Scalia was a guest in one of my constitutional law classes at the University of Missouri. He began by asking the students to identify what they considered to be the most important provision in the Constitution. Most students identified the First Amendment and the freedom of expression; some identified the 6th Amendment鈥檚 right to council, others the 4th Amendment鈥檚 protection against unreasonable search and seizures, a few cited the 2nd Amendment, and still others concentrated on the 14th Amendment鈥檚 due process and equal protection clauses. Justice Scalia acknowledged the importance of each, but noted that many world constitutions, even those of totalitarian regimes, contain such provisions on paper.

It was Justice Scalia鈥檚 considered opinion that the most important provisions of our Constitution are those providing for separation of powers and checks and balances. These concepts, of course, were the brainchild of French philosopher Montesquieu. In his classic work, The Spirit of the Laws (1748), Montesquieu suggested a mixed constitution with built in safeguards that would impede any one group from gaining total control of the polity. As Madison writes in Federalist #51, 鈥淎mbition must be made to counteract ambition.鈥� The embracement of this philosophy in our Constitution is clearly evident. Article I provides, 鈥淎ll Legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress.鈥� Article II begins, 鈥淭he Executive Powers shall be vested in a President of the United States鈥︹�� And, Article III stipulates, 鈥淭he Judicial Power shall be vested in one Supreme Court and such inferior courts as Congress shall from time to time ordain and establish.鈥� Under this plan, each branch is responsible to a different constituency, serves a different term, and possesses different legal weapons with which to challenge the other. It is Scalia鈥檚 contention that without these vital elements all other freedoms would be meaningless.

Changes 鈥� Then and Now

Just consider a few of the changes that have taken place since our Constitution took effect in 1789. Our nation鈥檚 capitol was New York City. The largest city was Philadelphia with about 40,000 people (the population of Quincy, Illinois, today) and the entire U.S. population was roughly 3.9 million (about one-third the current population of Illinois). There were just 13 states, and each had nearly complete freedom to control anything within its borders. People of color were not citizens; indeed, most were considered property. Children had few rights, women could not vote, and even white males had to be 21 and own property to vote. There were no political parties. There was no Capitol Building, no White House, and no Supreme Court Building (indeed it would not be until 1935 that the High Court had its first, permanent home). Senators were selected by their respective state legislatures. Serving in Congress in the early days of our Republic was a great personal sacrifice, and most members served no more than one or two terms. President Washington鈥檚 initial administration consisted of just one, part-time person鈥攈is nephew, Bushrod, whom he paid him out of his own pocket. Of necessity, President Washington鈥檚 foreign policy was that of isolation as he sought to avoid entangling alliances. The first federal budget was about $1 million. The Supreme Court was created with the Federal Judiciary Act of 1789. The first Supreme Court consisted of six members, who rode circuit twice a year, and didn鈥檛 render a case for the first three years. It took weeks to travel to and from the nation鈥檚 capitol. Believe it or not, there were no Wal-Marts, no airplanes, no computers, no cell phones, no emails, no blackberries鈥�. You get the idea.

Today, there are 50 states, and the U.S. population is an estimated 310 million. Washington, DC, has served as our nation鈥檚 capital since 1800. The U.S. federal government budget is now $3.1 trillion, and our nation in going in debt about $1.9 billion per day! The national government through the commerce clause, emergency powers, and grants-in-aid now regulates many areas that were once considered the exclusive preserve of the states. One would be hard pressed to find a single policy area (education, highways, health care, welfare, public safety, etc.) that the federal government does not regulate. Indeed, it could be argued that Illinois is no longer the state of Illinois, but a department of the federal government! The White House has long been the symbol of the presidency. The President鈥檚 staff has now grown to about 450, excluding the residence employees, such as chefs, custodians, gardeners, and painters. And the U.S. government has a presence in every part of the globe. Political parties have long dominated the nomination and election process. Senators have been popularly elected for nearly a century. And now if you win a seat in Congress, due to incumbency advantage and partisan gerrymandering, it鈥檚 yours to keep! There was more turnover in the Supreme Soviet than in the U.S. Congress. Minorities and women are now winning significant electoral victories at all levels of government and are now a vital part of the political landscape. And now in 2008, American stands poised to elect an African American or a woman to the highest offices of our nation!

Methods of Constitutional Change

Our Constitution has changed in myriad ways, both formally and informally.

Through Formal Amendments

The Framers recognized that the Constitution would require periodic alterations, so they included an amending article, Article V. This article is based on the federal principle; it requires the consent of both the national and state governments to amend the Constitution. There are two ways to propose and two ways to ratify amendments. They can be proposed by two-thirds vote in both houses of Congress, or by a Constitutional Convention called for by 2/3鈥檚 of the state legislatures (today, 34 states). I will have more to offer regarding the convention method in just a moment.

The ink had barely dried on the Constitution in 1787, when anonymous articles began to appear in newspapers questioning the efficacy and limits of the new government. Among the greatest concerns of these Anti-federalists was the Supremacy clause (Art. 6, Sec. 2), the role of the Supreme Court, and most especially the lack of a Bill of Rights. The Founders generally thought there were sufficient protections built into the Constitution, especially in Article I, Sections 9 and 10 (e.g., proscriptions on ex post facto laws, bills of attainder). But this did not satisfy the Anti-federalists. Indeed, George Mason of Virginia quipped, 鈥淚 would rather cut off my right arm than to sign this document as it presently exists.鈥� Fearing that the Constitution would not be ratified, the Federalists agreed to add a Bill of Rights.

When the very first Congress met in New York in March of 1789, the Federalists immediately announced plans to accept amendments. Just think, this may be the first time, and the only time, in recorded history where Congress ever kept a promise. Approximately, 125 amendments were submitted, many overlapped and were poorly worded (there were many 鈥渙ught nots鈥� in the verbiage). Mason and Madison took the lead in sifting and winnowing through the proposals. Ultimately, Congress approved twelve amendments, and sent them to the states for ratification. The states ratified ten, which became known collectively as the Bill of Rights.

Interestingly, the original first two amendments did not pass. The original first amendment did not pass. It would have established one member of Congress for every 30,000 persons. Had that passed, we would have just over 10,000 members of Congress! That would be like herding cats! And the original second amendment is now the 27th Amendment, ratified in 1992, 203 years after it was originally proposed.

The Bill of Rights, the first ten amendments, was ratified in 1791. But there are still at least two common misperceptions about these amendments. First, the Bill of Rights places restrictions on government, not individuals. For example, it is not a violation of the First Amendment for a private employer to sanction an employee for an untoward remark made on the job. Indeed, among all 27 constitutional amendments, there is only one that restricts individual action鈥攖he 13th Amendment. Second, only a portion of the Bill of Rights today extends protections against state actions, as opposed to federal governmental actions. Beginning with Gitlow v. New York (1925), the U.S. Supreme Court has gradually expanded the meaning of the 14th Amendment鈥檚 鈥渄ue process鈥� clause to selectively absorb or incorporate portions of the Bill of Rights so that they extend protection against both levels of government鈥攂ut only on a piecemeal, case-by-case basis. Today, only three amendments of the Bill of Rights, 1st, 4th and 6th, protect us against state actions. Two amendments have been partially incorporated鈥�5th and 8th. The remaining five amendments鈥�2nd, 3rd, 7th, 9th and 10th鈥攐nly apply to the federal government.

Three Amendments have been added to overcome controversial U.S. Supreme Court rulings. They are: 11th Amendment (1795) to overcome Chisholm v. Georgia (1793), 14th Amendment (1868) to reverse Dred Scott v. Sanford (1857), 16th Amendment (1913) to circumvent Pollock v. Farmer鈥檚 Loan & Trust Company (1895).

Three Amendments were added to reflect changing social values. They were the 13th (1865), striking slavery and involuntary servitude; the 18th (1919), calling for prohibition; and the 21st (1933), which repealed the 18th Amendment.

Four Amendments have altered the method of selecting the President: the 12th (1804), requiring electors to cast separate ballots for President and Vice President; 20th (1933) or 鈥渓ame duck鈥� amendment, telescoping the period between the election and convening of government; 22nd (1951), term limits for the President; and 25th (1967) establishing procedures for dealing with presidential disability and vacancies.

And there have been six amendments that have expanded the franchise. It is painfully obvious that our suffrage was quite limited in the early days of our Republic. The Constitution leaves the question of voter qualifications up to the states, and the states generally limited voting to white, male property owners over 21 years of age. But through the amendment process, we have added the 15th (1870), extending suffrage to men of color; 17th (1913), calling for the popular election of U.S. Senators; 19th (1920); granting the franchise to women; 23rd (1961), allowing the residents of Washington, DC, three electoral votes; 24th (1964), banning poll taxes in federal elections; and 26th (1971), allowing those over 18 years old the right to vote.

But how do you think those changes occurred? Do you think that a group of men sat there in Congress and said, 鈥淲e think it鈥檚 a good idea if we were elected by the people rather than being hand picked by our good old boy network back home in the state legislatures鈥�? Maybe they said: 鈥淗ere鈥檚 a good idea, lets give people of color the right to vote.鈥� Perchance they said, 鈥淲ouldn鈥檛 it be great if we gave women the right vote?鈥� Or perhaps they said, 鈥淲e really need to give teenagers the right to vote.鈥� If you believe that, you would believe that a pencil only has one end. It took a very well organized progressive movement, with great civic leaders, to change the way we elect U.S. Senators. It took a Civil War to secure the 15th Amendment, plus an additional hundred years of struggle and uncommon civic leadership to secure the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 to enable people of color the right to vote. And it took social protest and a peace movement on college campuses to secure 18 year-olds the right to vote.

Nobody said it was easy. But it is possible if you have the right civic leaders鈥攍eaders, who possess great passion, are driven by principles, who understand the art of politics, and are willing to make great sacrifices to achieve great things.

Of course, there are lots of people with seemingly great ideas who have attempted to create constitutional amendments. There have been over 11,000 constitutional amendments proposed over the years, and over half have been since 1970. You can find a few of those proposals listed in the handout. Some might seem a bit odd, such as amendments to outlaw dueling, renaming our country to 鈥淭he United States of the World,鈥� or selecting Presidents by lot from a list of retiring U.S. Senators鈥攏ow that might be a way to enforce term limits! Other proposals may strike a harmonious chord, such as the amendments to limit congressional terms, restrict campaign contributions or eliminate my 鈥渁lma mater,鈥� the Electoral College. Did you know that there have been over 500 proposed amendments to change or eliminate the Electoral College? Recent polls suggest that over 70 percent of Americans favor the popular election of the President.

Through Constitutional Convention

As just noted, Article V also allows us to amend the Constitution through a constitutional convention when petitioned to do so by two-thirds of the state legislatures (now 34). Thus far, all of our amendments have been proposed initially by state legislatures; but there have been more than 300 attempts to call for another convention, but on only two occasions have we come close to securing the necessary two-thirds requirement. Led by U.S. Senator Everett Dirksen (R-IL) we came within two states of calling a constitutional convention in the late 1960s in reaction to Reynolds v. Sims (1964), a Supreme Court decision that ordered the upper houses of state legislatures to redraw their districts to comport with the 鈥渙ne person, one vote鈥� principle. And the most recent was in the 1990s when we fell just two states short of petitioning Congress to convene a constitutional convention for the purpose of establishing an amendment to require a balanced federal budget.

Among the most thoughtful suggestions to amend the U.S. Constitution have been offered by Dr. Larry Sabato, distinguished professor of political science at the University of Virginia. I have summarized his 23 suggestions for amending the Constitution in the handout. Among other things, he seeks to impose term limits on members of Congress; enlarge the size of House, Senate and Supreme Court; ban wealthy people from financing their own campaigns; and require a balanced federal budget. But to accomplish any of these, he is proposing another constitutional convention.

Let us consider this prospect for a moment. The Framers did not provide us with a great deal of detail with respect to the notion of a constitution convention. Here are some paramount questions. How will delegates be selected鈥攂y state legislatures, by Congress, by the voters? How many delegates will each state be entitled to have鈥攅qual numbers or members equal to the number of Senators and Representatives each state has in Congress? Who will preside over this new constitutional convention鈥攁 present leader of Congress, a state governor, a former President, the Chief Justice? Who will be the next George Washington? Should we require bipartisan representation? How are votes to be cast鈥攁pportioned by the states or shall each state get just one vote, as it was in the 1787 convention? Would it be possible to maintain secrecy like the original convention or would the media demand embedded reporters? What would prevent a 鈥渞unaway鈥� convention; recall the purpose of our very first Convention was the 鈥渟ole and express purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation.鈥� And, would it be possible to craft a workable document that would satisfy the diverse interests in our American society?

And even if a new constitutional convention could reach agreement, the proposed amendments or new constitution would have to be ratified by three-fourths or 38 states today. Which current provisions of the Constitution would emerge undisturbed鈥攖he Establishment Clause, the Free Exercise Clause, the 2nd Amendment, the Takings Clause, the Supremacy Clause? Perhaps F. Lee Bailey was correct when he quipped that the Bill of Rights would not even get out of a Congressional Committee today.

Through Custom and Usage

Our Constitution also has been altered through custom and usage. Here are just a few examples. Congress has developed 鈥渟enatorial courtesy,鈥� the unwritten rule that requires the President to seek prior approval from the U.S. Senator(s) of his party before making an appointment from that state. Most Congress members now engage in the practice of 鈥渆armarking鈥� funds for pet projects, often without full hearings or complete public scrutiny. Congress has the authority to subpoena witnesses to testify before hearings, a power that historically belonged only to the judicial branch. Beginning with George Washington, Presidents have withheld sensitive information from Congress in the name of separation of powers. The Supreme Court recognizes this practice, known as 鈥渆xecutive privilege,鈥� as constitutional for national security but not criminal activities (U.S. v. Nixon, 1974). The Supreme Court also recognizes the President鈥檚 authority to remove the people whom he appoints, albeit that power is not specified in the Constitution (see, Myers v. U.S., 1926). Likewise, the High Court has legitimated the President鈥檚 power to negotiate 鈥渆xecutive agreements鈥� with foreign states without senatorial approval鈥攁nd these agreements have the same constitutional status as a treaty (see, U.S. v. Belmont, 1937; U.S. v. Pink, 1942). The power to declare war is conferred upon Congress in Article I, but for all practical purposes this power seems to have been transferred to the President. Indeed, Barry Goldwater once quipped, 鈥淭he United States has been in only five declared wars out of the more than 150 in which we have fought.鈥� And, perhaps most importantly, the United State Supreme Court has claimed the power of 鈥渏udicial review鈥濃�攖he authority to declare acts of Congress, the President or the actions of state or local governments unconstitutional. Let us turn our attention to the role of the Supreme Court in interpreting the Constitution.

Through Supreme Court Rulings

Judicial review is, for all intents and purposes, an American invention. While the seeds of judicial review could be found in British legal history (e.g., Lord Coke in Bonham鈥檚 Case, 1610), the American colonial experience (e.g., James Otis in Lechmere鈥檚 Case, 1761) or early appellate court decisions (e.g., William Patterson in Van Horne鈥檚 Lessee v. Dorrance, 1795), the logical place to begin is the landmark case of Marbury v. Madison (1803) when Chief Justice John Marshall declared the Constitution to be a fundamental document, superior to any congressional enactment, and any law enacted which runs contrary to the Constitution should be null and void. Up to that point, no government of the world had ever permitted such action. The role of the courts was always thought to be to interpret the law, not to reject it. The act of interpretation is thought to be a judicial act. It is up to the legislature to revise the law to comport with the fundamental law; it was not the role of the judicial branch to order legislative actions or nullify the law. Thus, the act of declaring something unconstitutional is thought to be a political act.

The U.S. Supreme Court is among the most powerful political bodies in the world. Its rulings not only interpret the Constitution, but they shape its meaning and direction. It is understandable why many observers believe the Supreme Court is nothing more than a perpetual constitutional convention.

The Supreme Court鈥檚 power is best understood by the 鈥淎llegory of the Skull.鈥� There was a primitive tribe that resided on an isolated island in the Southern Pacific. The people of this primitive tribe had never been exposed to the ways of the modern world. They wore loincloths, lived in grass huts, ate coconuts, speared fish, and had never seen a gun, an airplane or a telephone. When the people had a problem, the tribal elders would hike up to the sacred cave in the side of the mountain, where they would consult the skull of their founder. After several hours of incantations and gyrations around the skull, the elders would emerge from the cave and rejoin the tribe to announce the decision of the skull.

Is this really any different than the U.S. Supreme Court? Nearly every Friday or Thursday, when Court is in session, our nine appointed Supreme Court Justice meet in conference to decide cases. The meeting is held in complete secrecy as they gather around a large wooden table. And on the center of that table is a copy of the Constitution. Here the justices are called upon to decide cases our Framers could never have envisioned鈥攃ases relating to wiretapping, automobile searches, affirmative action, campaign finance reform. Should enemy aliens be afforded the same rights as American citizens? Can Washington, DC, outlaw guns within its jurisdiction? Can a private club restrict membership to men, or women? Can campus clubs on public universities use activity fees to promote religion? Does lethal injection constitute 鈥渃ruel or unusual punishment鈥�? Does a pregnant woman driving alone constitute a car pool? And whenever the decision is reached, members of the Washington press corps, many of whom are attorneys, will scramble to promulgate the Court鈥檚 ruling. Headlines might read, 鈥淭he Constitution Prohibits this or that鈥� Says the High Court,鈥� or 鈥淭he Supreme Court Determines Police Procedures Violate the Constitution.鈥� Sound familiar? But the reality is, none of those things are written in the Constitution or on the skull in the cave. Perhaps it all comes down to what Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes said, 鈥淭he Constitution is what a majority of the justices say it is.鈥�

The ongoing polemics over the proper role of the Supreme Court can be traced to the Anti-Federalists and Federalists debate over the ratification of the Constitution. In the Anti-Federalists #78 and #79 (March 1788), 鈥淏rutus鈥� (generally thought to be Robert Yates, NY) argued against placing such immense power in the hands of judges with lifetime appointments. He feared the Court would run roughshod over the states, particularly under the aegis of the supremacy clause (Article I, Section 2). In Federalist #78 (June 1788), 鈥淧ublius鈥� (Alexander Hamilton, NY) responded by noting the judicial branch is intended to be the weakest branch of the national government. But he quickly asserted that a Supreme Court was necessary to check the unauthorized actions of the legislative and executive branches and preserve the people鈥檚 rights vested in the Constitution.

Today, there are many who believe the Constitution is a 鈥渓iving document鈥� which affords Supreme Court justices great leeway in interpreting the law to meet the needs of an ever-changing society. These 鈥渏udicial activists鈥� see the Court as the vanguard to protect civil liberties and minority rights. Others believe Supreme Court justices should merely interpret the words of the Constitution and refrain from creating new rights and liberties, such as privacy rights or group rights. From the 鈥渏udicial restraint鈥� perspective, any significant alteration of the Constitution should redound from a majority of the people through their elected representatives. Whatever side you take on this debate, this much is clear鈥攐ur Constitution is a great document that affects nearly every aspect of our lives today.

Will Our Constitution Last?

With that backdrop, now let us turn to the central question of this lecture: Will our Constitution last? The answer, of course, depends on many factors. There are many reasons to believe our Constitution will stand the test of time, and equally compelling reasons why it may not meet the challenges ahead. Let us briefly examine some reasons to be optimistic and some reasons to be guarded.

Reasons for Optimism

There are many reasons to be optimistic about our Constitution鈥檚 future. First and foremost, consider its longevity. Think of how many nation-state constitutions have come and gone since 1789. The second oldest written constitution still in operation is that of Norway, which dates to 1814, some 25 years our junior. There are approximately 190 member states in the United Nations today, and roughly 120 of those have constitutions written since 1970. France has undergone ten constitutions鈥�5 republics, 2 dictatorships, 2 empires, and one monarchy. And El Salvador has experimented with approximately 36 constitutions over its existence.

Second, our Constitution has survived great economic crises. It managed to survive the economic calamity in the inchoate stages of our Republic when we had no national banking system. The Constitution has endured recessions, panics and even the Great Depression of the 1930s鈥攚hen nearly a quarter of our population was unemployed, hundreds of banks closed their doors, and thousands of businesses filed bankruptcy.

Third, the Constitution has endured great electoral challenges. It survived the presidential election of 1800, when it took the House of Representatives 36 ballots to make Thomas Jefferson the President over Aaron Burr. The Constitution has weathered four presidential elections where the candidate who won the most popular votes lost the election. They were the elections of 1824 (John Quincy Adams over Andrew Jackson), 1876 (Rutherford B. Hayes over Samuel J. Tilden), 1888 (Benjamin Harrison over Grover Cleveland), and, how can anybody forget 2000 (George W. Bush over Al Gore)! The outcome of the 2000 election, of course, was ultimately determined by the Supreme Court in Bush v. Gore (2000). I find it a bit ironic that those who subscribe to judicial activism bitterly disagreed with the decision, while those who believe in judicial restraint generally applauded the decision.

The Constitution has likewise survived presidential crises. Consider the great scandals鈥攖he Cr茅dit Mobilier (Grant), Teapot Dome (Harding) and Watergate (Nixon). Our system has survived two presidential impeachments鈥擜ndrew Johnson (1868) and William Jefferson Clinton (1998), and four assassinations鈥擜braham Lincoln (1865), James A. Garfield (1881), William McKinley (1898), and John F. Kennedy (1963). And from 1974 to 1977 our nation had both a President (Gerald R. Ford) and a Vice President (Nelson Rockefeller), neither of whom was elected by the people!

Our Constitution has withstood great social upheavals, such as the Whiskey Rebellion (1791) and the Dorr Rebellion (1841). It has withstood assassinations of charismatic American leaders鈥擬alcolm X (1965), Martin Luther King, Jr. (1968), and Robert Kennedy (1968). And, it survived the greatest of all challenges, the Civil War鈥攖he deadliest conflagration that pitted brother against brother, sister against sister, and redounded in some 618,000 deaths.

Reasons for Pessimism

But there are some reasons to question whether this great document can survive. Is there anything that lasts forever? Perhaps love, truth, or Scripture last forever? Certainly, human flesh does not. If we are fortunate to live a long life, each of us will experience physical and mental decline. Is there anything humans build that will not deteriorate with time? Every building, bridge, monument or structure will ultimate decay and crumble without constant upkeep and repair. Consider the ancient Hebrew passage: 鈥淎nd this too shall pass.鈥� In 484 B.C., Greek historian Herodotus, observed: 鈥淭here is nothing permanent except change.鈥� And, please note, when Benjamin Franklin quipped, 鈥渘othing in this world is certain, but death and taxes,鈥� he was actually referring to the U.S. Constitution.