Retaining our Constitutional culture

Essayist Gerald L. Early once wrote that 2,000 years from now, America will be known for “the Constitution, baseball, and jazz music…the three most beautiful things our culture has ever produced.”

Tough to argue with that.

But if the Constitution is to be enshrined in this immortal trio of Americana, why do today’s leaders continue to dismiss what’s written inside ^[1]?

Before the current era of bailouts and ballot measures, the Constitution was largely considered a dusty relic, rarely discussed outside of law school courses and legal briefs.  Today, a heavy dose of public skepticism in the expanding scope of government has sparked a “mini-revival” in the actual text of the wrinkled old document.  Note to Congress: this isn’t a bad thing.  Applying the Constitution’s 1788 phraseology to the issues of 2009 offers more than a dry legal exercise.  Just like eating a hotdog at the Yankees’ new ballpark or downloading old Coltrane songs on an iPod, it’s an example of distinctly American culture being rediscovered, refreshed, and renewed.  Our politicians should embrace, rather than denigrate, this new found enthusiasm.

Although each member of Congress takes the same oath to “support and defend” the Constitution, both sides of the aisle have a long history of referencing the text only when necessary for their specific purposes. Many Democrats often seem flabbergasted or annoyed that a 200 year old piece of parchment has the audacity to hinder their current utopian visions of societal progress.  These same liberals, however, were not shy about raising the hammer of “unconstitutionality” to bash George W. Bush for his alleged civil rights abuses as President.

By the same token, today’s Republicans have manned the bulwarks to protect the nation from Obama’s anti-constitutional national spending spree. These same conservatives, however, often bury their head in the sand whenever their hallowed Constitution is used to protect conduct or speech they deem “icky.”

These differences are telling. The right legitimately questions the constitutional authority to throw endless truckloads of taxpayer cash into the gaping maw of federal bureaucracy. The left legitimately questions the constitutional authority for warrantless wiretaps or for throwing medical marijuana users in jail.

Can’t both sides be correct?  If, along with jazz and baseball, the Constitution is to remain a “beautiful product” of our society, shouldn’t it become more of a cultural guidepost instead of a partisan lightning rod? We don’t need to agree on its every interpretation or its every outcome. But just like a home-plate umpire or a double bass line, the Constitution should set the pace of the game.