A little research into the origins of
American political thought brings one to the fact that there are at least two
or three overall approaches to how and from where those ideas and ideals come. One school, represented among others by
Daniel Elazar, Donald Lutz, and the Center for the Study of Federalism harkens
to the role of local government.
A second school looks to the
influence of classical thinkers such as those of ancient Greece and Rome. Here, an example scholar is the historian and
Pulitzer Prize winner Thomas E. Ricks.
And yet a third school is a “bottom up” approach, that this writer considers
to be a critical theory approach and is exemplified by Ray Raphael. This blog supports and promotes the federalist
approach of Elazar, et al. but suggests to interested readers that they should
avail themselves to all three to attain a well-rounded exposure to the nation’s
history.
Key to this federalist view is the
identification and analysis of founding documents. Lutz provides a thorough review of colonial
documents in his edited book, Colonial Origins of the American Constitution. In that volume, he presents eighty of those
documents. As is often the case, the
federal strategy seems to find a compromise between those influenced by perennialism
– a philosophy in education that good education consists of studying the
classical thinkers – and those who look to the common folk, the bottom up
approach, for what pushes social and political agendas.
In
comparing the first two approaches, the more elitist, perennial approach and
the federal view, Lutz writes,
… there are two constitutional
traditions running through colonial documents.
The first tradition can be found in the charters, letters-patent, and
instructions for the colonists written in England. In certain respects, the United States
Constitution favors this tradition. The
second tradition is found in the covenants, compacts, agreements, ordinances,
codes, and oaths written by the colonists themselves. While the U.S. Constitution embodies aspects
of this tradition as well, it is in the early state constitutions that we find
the full flowering of this second tradition.[1]
With a bit of license, this writer
sees this quote as indicating that while the influence from Europe – emanating
from English elites and classical education – was real and of consequence,
local American sources in their rule making provide a great deal of direction
as to the practical, everyday concerns of the colonists.
And while official documents of early
Americans, in part, were also written by well educated colonists, they had to
live with the everyday reactions of their fellow companions in mostly frontier
environments or small towns and cities.
That is, the politics they faced were close and personal. And, as background, those conversations were
within certain parameters.
One, there was the perceived need to write
basic laws and this seems to emanate from two traditional, legal/cultural movements. And two, what was established by these early
Americans had staying power and can readily be cited as part of the current
situation of today. They, therefore, came
from, one, abroad and, two, from domestic sources.
From England, one had a written
constitution, but it was a compilation of common law and legislative ordinances. This was more or less stitched together and,
to a degree, lacked definitive direction.
The other tradition was the accepted practice of Americans writing out
their own basic law made possible by the practical expectation that England
could not rule them from far away as it ruled its citizens in England.
But in addition, there was one more
factor to this second tradition. Besides
the practical inability of English government ruling Americans in the various
colonies was the congregational tradition that the initial Puritanical settlers
brought with them. Not only were they
disposed to writing foundational documents for their religious communities, but
this practice seemed a natural mode of establishment for government as well. And setting the tone for this was the
original motivation to reestablish themselves in this new uninviting
environment as they escaped another such environment.
That is, many of them made the trip
to escape religious discriminatory practices in Anglican England. Serving as an underlying factor was the
hierarchical structure of the Anglican Church – headed by the monarch who
replaced the Pope under Henry the VIII – and the horizontal, congregational
structure of Puritanism. This variance
from traditional, centered religious structure had its effect on governance in
general as being something to avoid.
And moving to this newer setting in
America meant they could run their affairs as they saw fit. Of course, a set of rules is still needed and
that tradition of writing and expressing agreement with a covenant provided the
method by which those rules were devised, argued, and agreed upon within the
various congregations. Lutz further
writes,
… [They used] self-written covenants as part of their political
definitions. It is a very short step
move to a blending of these two traditions wherein Americans would find
themselves writing single, amendable documents constitutions. The Pilgrim Code of Law, for example, begins
by referring to both the charter from the king and the Mayflower Compact as its
legal basis.[2]
And these foundational documents,
according to Lutz, eventually had four recurring elements.
Element
one is “the founding or creation of a people.”
That is, a group identifies itself as having a combination of attributes
or characteristics apart from other people and that that group decides to
identify that fact and formerly announce to the world that it exists under that
identification. It can be based on an allegiance
to a place, a set of ideas and/or values, and/or other cultural elements. It is significantly more substantive than a
fandom of some team or community; it has a wholeness that profoundly defines
its members as in “we are Americans.”
Element
two exists when such a transcendent declaration demands “the founding or creation
of a government.” When this is so, the
foundational document provides for it.
Apparently, John Locke points out the following distinction, that
element one is a unanimous decision and, element two, establishing a government
is a majoritarian agreement.
And these first two elements suggests
a structured arrangement within such documents:
first one identifies the people, “We the people of the United States…”,
and then, after listing some reasons, states the origins of that people’s
government, “,,, do ordain and establish this Constitution of the United
States.” But one asks: this is a “constitution” of what? And the answer is, of a government.
To further define matters, there is the
third element, “the self-definition of the people in terms of shared values and
goals so that the founded people may cross generation.” That is, the document shares with the world
on what basis this people define themselves.
This is the origin of bills of rights that begin to appear in these
constitutions, and they appear just after the declarations of elements one and
two. Unlike with the federal
constitution, if one looks at state constitutions, one finds this order: a people, an establishment of a government,
and a statement of basic values.
And why not at the federal level? Initially, the idea was that the Declaration
of Independence already fulfilled this function. But that was not good enough for those who
had doubts about ratifying the constitution of 1787. Its defenders promised that as the first
order of business when the new Congress convened was to submit a bill of rights
as amendments and that promise was kept.
And finally, the fourth element is
“the specification of a form of government through the creation of institutions
for collective decision making.”
Interestingly, this term constitution is originally only applied to this
fourth element of the document but through use it has now been ascribed to the
whole document.
This later change is a bit
unfortunate in that it leads people to miss the importance of the whole
document being a compact and by so doing the miss the fact that it, the
constitution, creates a partnership among its members and their posterity. In addition, by pointing out these elements,
one can compare any foundational document with other such documents. For example, how do American institutions
compare to those of other established governments and their people.
In terms of the US, those
institutions would include popular elections, majority rule, minority rights, separation
of powers, bicameralism, checks and balances, among others. Along with these institutions are their
accompanying structural features such as the executive, the legislative, and
the judicial branches.
And this last bit of concern hints at
what this blog will address next when these foundational documents are again
taken up. That will be the definition of
key terms associated with these documents and their developments. Eventually, the plan of this writer is to
look at a sample of these early documents, and test the notion that early on
Americans shared, as a dominant view, a federalist understanding of what governance
and politics is and/or should be.
No comments:
Post a Comment