Notes on the Constitution of the United States and on constitutions more generally.

Dave Gardner

One of the great powers in the world, the USA, has a widely acclaimed written constitution, written in the late eighteenth century. It is based on the political philosophy of John Locke, an English philosopher and leading theoretician of the English Glorious Revolution oligarchical group of aristocrats who drastically trimmed the power of the monarch to rule behind the scenes in his place. It is based on the idea of distributing sovereignty between an executive, a legislature and a judicial arm of government, with limitations on each. Locke’s ideas were adapted to a republic with an extended but not universal suffrage. Many Americans, including libertarians such as Judge Napolitano, make it a key point for the protection of civil liberty and maintenance of limited government and lament the way in which its provisions are often ignored by contemporary governments and the non-elected state apparatus. Particular reference is made to amendments 1-10, the so-called Bill of Rights. 

The points made in these amendments reflect Locke and his followers’ desire for the capacity to resist sovereigns, both morally and physically. The first amendment concerns unlimited freedom of speech and right to assembly. The second, concerning the right to bear arms, is related to the Lockean claim that the people (i.e. the aristocrats and their allies) should retain the power to resist and if necessary overthrow any government that they consider to be acting unjustly. In practice the second amendment has been used to allow Americans to carry guns in public and private places. This liberty does not generally exist in most countries except for those that really do have militias, such as Switzerland. The first amendment is important in the context of democracies as it is a prerequisite of any form of government that lays claim to allowing for genuine debate about political issues. It, rather than the second amendment, has come under sustained attack in the US, not overtly, but through the passing of state laws, the negligence of the legislature and the actions of the executive in suppressing for example anti-Israel agitation, even of the passive kind such as participating in a boycott of Israeli goods.

A constitution can be a fine thing for a state to possess, particularly if it provides protections such as those in the first amendment. But it is only a normative ideal. It is a document with a foundational standing. In the US public servants give an oath of allegiance to it. But rarely are documents  completely unambiguous. They can be interpreted and the Supreme Court exists in large part to do just that. Judges to the Supreme Court are appointed by the Executive and endorsed by the Legislature, their appointment being the outcome of a political process.

In reality political power may in practice make a mockery of the constitution. This is partly because constitutions can, as mentioned above, be interpreted. Within the constitution legislative workarounds can be found. For example, what does constitute an emergency that allows the executive extraordinary powers granted by acts of Congress? More important however, is the way in which power is wielded. In the US and Europe this is done increasingly through a moneyed oligarchy that controls nominally opposed and independent political parties, the mainstream media, informal media outlets, think tanks and elements of the bureaucratic state. 

In such circumstances, those that currently obtain in the US and to a lesser degree in other so-called liberal democracies, the constitution is a normative ideal which becomes largely irrelevant. Free speech is important, but the constitution does not and cannot guarantee free access to information. Without comprehensive and accurate information it is impossible for a mass electorate to form sound judgements about the best interests of their country, even when they have the desire to do so. In the US mass media are controlled by a small clique of billionaires who ensure that information and allowable opinion are tightly controlled. 

The vast funding required for participation in politics at state, let alone national level, ensure that candidates from both the Republican and Democrat parties depend on billionaire funding for their political careers. Step out of line and the same billionaires will ensure that a well-funded opponent sees to it that you are defeated in the next election. The legislative as well as the executive arm of government is subordinated despite the nominal supremacy of the universal suffrage electorate. To the credit of the people of the US, there is enough of an independent spirit to ensure that independent experts and writers, people like Jeffrey Sachs, John Mearsheimer, Candace Owens, Andrew Napolitano, Scott Ritter, Daniel Davis, Douglas Macgregor and others have a large following outside the mainstream media, although it is likely that the oligarchs who control the internet platforms will eventually find ways of gagging them. The Battle of Ideas will not be won in the sphere of ideas but in a world of manipulation.

All democracies are to an extent oligarchies and even high-flown democrative constitutions will be either ignored by those oligarchies or interpreted in their favour to a certain extent. But the power of money in the US is now such that even the fig leaf of their Eighteenth Century constitution is in danger of being set aside. Big money brings big power and constitutions run the risk of irrelevance. Class politics is needed to bring big money under control and to promote a democracy that at least pays some attention to democratic ideals enshrined in documents such as the US constitution.