Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli caused a bit of a stir with his speech at Mary Washington University before an audience of which, apparently, was comprised “nearly entirely of protesters interrupted him frequently and held up signs criticizing his policies.” To read from the comments on the story, the protesters were still feeling their oats, confidently calling Cuccinelli a “bigot” while also reveling in the pride they felt at being members of the MWU community.
While one can question the audience’s manners, and the pride it takes in its incivility, the familiar thrust of Cuccinelli’s remarks — that the federal government has over-reached its authority in any number of areas — is my main object.
There’s a lot of talk about the Constitution — what it means, what it should mean, what it might mean if you hold it just so in the light. Some of this talk is useful. But the more people talk about the nation’s fundamental law, the more common it is for shorthand, and even outright falsehood, to seep into the discussion. That’s not only bad, but dangerous.
In today’s Wall Street Journal, Seth Lipsky suggests that one way to combat this dumbing-down, at least among the political class, is to hold a televised debate on the Constitution. More specifically, he wants the GOP presidential candidates, who otherwise make “glancing references” to the document, to revise and extend their remarks:
Let the candidates really get it on over how they understand the document that whoever wins the presidency will swear to preserve, protect and defend. How would the Constitution guide them should they become president of America?
He offers possible areas for debate, such as on the exact, constitutional nature of treason, on whether the document provides legitimacy to the Federal Reserve and Social Security and on the primacy of the federal government in immigration policy.
His aim is a noble one:
There is so much to debate about the Constitution—war powers, gay marriage, birthright citizenship, the gold standard, the role of the vice president, campaign funding. One could go on. Holding a debate centered on the Constitution could bring a coherence to the campaign.
Coherence, yes. It would also tell us a great deal about the candidates. Who has actually read the document? Which of them have done more than read the Cliffs Notes version of The Federalist Papers? We might even discover one or two who’ve actually read Joseph Story’s Commentaries, and perhaps even the outlier who has plunged into the seminal rulings of John Marshall’s Supreme Court.
It would also provide the very useful service of telling us which candidate(s) wouldn’t know the Constitution from a nutrition label on a cereal box.
And, under Lipsky’s vision, there might even be something for Mr. Cuccinelli to sink his teeth into:
One of the big issues this year is the Commerce Clause, one of the grounds on which the Obama administration is claiming the right to have passed ObamaCare. The clause gives Congress the power to “regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes.” Do the candidates who reckon that Congress can use this clause to reach into a state to regulate economic activity there also reckon that they can reach into foreign nations and the Indian tribes and regulate their commerce, too?
There’s no better way to find out than to have just such a debate. Heck, I might even watch it, rather than catching the re-runs of Top Gear.
