Читать книгу We, the People - Adolph Psy.D. Caso - Страница 3

Although different documents and works were suggested, from the Code of Hammurabi up to the Marshall Plan, except for the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution with its Bill of Rights, and except for one or two individuals who confused the Articles of Confederation with the so-called Federalist papers, no one mentioned the Mayflower Compact, the Declaration of Causes or the Emancipation Proclamation. No one, except for a few in the legal profession, who had taken up the issue of capital punishment, had ever heard of Beccaria's Treatise (Essay) On Crimes and Punishments. Several, on the other hand, wanted to include the Magna Charta and put forward good arguments for its inclusion.

No one mentioned Thomas Paine's Common Sense; "'Tis time to part," he urged, and many adhered to his call. At the same time, he became such a critic as to distort truths and indiscriminately malign, without much justification, otherwise innocent people. Thomas Paine's attacks on George Washington, for example, were far more vehement than those seen on television today between party candidates running for the same office. Nevertheless, his pamphlet played a very important role in bringing about America's independence.

The goal of this book, therefore, is to bring together the documents and other corroborative works which have galvanized this continent–more specifically, items that were actually used to forge the nation that was to become the United States of America.

1. MAYFLOWER COMPACT

In the Mayflower Compact of November 11, 1620, the signers explain why they quit England, knowing all the while about the hardships ahead. Looking forward to their new settlement, they arrogated for themselves the right to "covenant and combine ourselves together into a civil body politic, for our better ordering and preservation, and furtherance of the ends aforesaid; and by virtue hereof do enact, constitute, and frame, such just and equal laws, ordinances, acts, constitutions, and offices, from time to time, as shall be thought most meet and convenient for the general good of the Colony unto which we promise all due submission and obedience."

The signers were leaving a nation governed by a monarchy guided by an established national (state) church. To see the word "constitution", therefore, becomes both brazen and promising at the same time. The signers may have been religious zealots at odds with the King and Church of England, but they were certainly clear in their undertakings and knowledgeable in the forms they were to design in order to govern themselves.

The original, herewith reproduced, is to be found among many other documents on the birth of this nation in the Archives of the State Library, Beacon Hill, Boston. The facsimile was made possible courtesy of the Library.

2. ON CRIMES AND PUNISHMENTS

The treatise On Crimes and Punishments by Cesare Beccaria (Marquis) from Milan, Italy, was widely used by our Founding Fathers. From George Washington to John Adams, to Thomas Jefferson, they all quoted extensively from this book. In England, Beccaria's treatise was also widely quoted, and came back to America through the works of individuals like William Blackstone, who became extremely important in matters of case law as adopted and adapted to American laws. This small book (trattato is often translated from the Italian into English as essay rather than treatise), is required reading in order to better understand America's form of government.

It was a best seller in the colonies, having been translated and published throughout the world, having had a major impact in England, France, Poland, Italy, Germany and even in Russia; yet, the book is woefully absent in today's writings about that 1770 decade, a period that produced, in one group, a practical basis on which to found a government for practically a whole continent. How they did it remains a wonder.

3. DECLARATION OF THE CAUSES...

The Declaration of the Causes and Necessity of Taking up Arms, July 6, 1775, was the second such document by the Continental Congress (the first being the Declaration and resolves... issued about three months earlier). Although the issue of the King's abusive taxation was the single most important gripe of the colonists–the perennial cry against taxation without representation, as is known today–the distinguishing element of the Declaration of Causes lies in the new, revolutionary idea which claimed that governments exist for the people and not vice-versa: "But a reverence for our great Creator, principles of humanity, and the dictates of common sense, must convince all those who reflect upon the subject that government was instituted to promote the welfare of mankind, and ought to be administered for the attainment of that end."

This bold statement asserted what had already been discussed in Europe and in America, but never implemented in any definitive form. With the ensuing Declaration, which was to declare the Colonies' independence from England, the possibility of having a government existing for the people (and not the people existing for the government) began to take shape and to become reality. A government made to serve the people and not vice-versa is the cornerstone of America's Democracy.

In his Address, President John F. Kennedy challenged the American people in a very untraditional way: "ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country." His recommendation may need to be re-assessed especially if compared to the Address of John Adams: "The declaration that our people are hostile to a government made by ourselves and for themselves, and conducted by themselves, is an insult." Adams' defense for the type of government he and his colleagues created is also defended by Abraham Lincoln as exemplified by his deeds in preserving the Union and in his words delivered at Gettysburg in 1863: that "this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom, and that government of the people, by the people, and for the people shall not perish from the earth." Straying away from that cornerstone, therefore, should be forcefully avoided if Americans want to retain their democratic form of government and to remain steadfast in their basic character as individuals and as a people.

In the debates at the Convention of 1787, James Wilson of Pennsylvania, himself an immigrant from England, said it best: "The British Government cannot be our model. We have no materials for a similar one. Our manners, our laws, the abolition of enteils and of primogeniture, the whole genius of the people, are opposed to it."

Curiously, an extant Italian language version of this Declaration is to be found among the Jefferson papers at the Library of Congress, Washington, D.C., and offers several stylistic variations from the original published in Philadelphia.

4. DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE

The Declaration of Independence is the crowning glory of the Continental Congress. By reiterating the basic premise in the Declaration of Causes, and by adding that of independence with all of its ramifications, it specified the people's goal and described the means through which to achieve it. "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.–That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,–that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute a new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness." The language is felicitous, its content noble, its intent bold and revolutionary. With that kind of resolve, how could the "new" Americans not succeed! However, in view of the divisiness of America's society as it goes into the 21st century, one is to wonder whether it is going in the opposite direction. The Founding Fathers refused to allow the category of nobility; today, people are arranged, divided, and engineered into all kinds of categories and classes, each receiving privileges according to gender, race, religion, age, size, ethnicity, etc.

5. ARTICLES OF CONFEDERATION

The Articles of Confederation were agreed to by Congress on November 15, 1777 and ratified on March 1, 1781: "to secure and perpetuate mutual friendship and intercourse among the people of the different States in this Union, the free inhabitants of each of these States, paupers, vagabonds and fugitives from justice excepted, shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of free citizens in the several States; and the people of each state shall have free ingress and regress to and from any other State, and shall enjoy therein all the privileges of trade and commerce."

With this document, the Congress eliminated the "Colony" as a legal entity and established the "State". Then they formed a "perpetual union between the States of New Hampshire, Massachusetts [etc]." By respecting each state's "sovereignty, freedom, and independence," and by bringing them into a federation, in essence, they succeeded in what many smaller European republics and city states had failed to achieve: the establishment of a federal Republic composed of smaller ones. Strangely, it also made provisions for Canada's possible inclusion into the Union.

6. THE CONSTITUTION

Whereas, The Declaration of Independence was the crowning glory of the Continental Congress, The Constitution of the United States of America has achieved the envious distinction of being the longest living document through which Americans, often from the remotest parts of the world, have allowed themselves to be guided and governed by this document. Without a doubt, it is a miracle if we were to contrast it to other constitutions, active or extant.

The greater miracle is that it came about. The hurdles were enormous. With slavery permeating the southern states, the issue regarding a formula for representation was complex indeed. Yet, with slaves inhabiting several states, with women not suited for voting, and with many other non-white property owners, it is a wonder that those involved in the constitutional deliberations agreed to the following preamble: "We, the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

Although the implications behind those innocuous words may have been incomprehensible to some, to others, however, they must have been both palatable and inscrutable at the same time, and this may be the reason why the preamble achieved consensus, when, for reasons cited above, it should have been rejected.

How can the mandate of "We, the people" be collective and exclusively restrictive at the same time? "We, the people" connotes collectivism–a single political body comprised of all the people. Whoever the specific writers may have been, in succeeding to insert those words at the beginning of the Constitution, they accomplished the biggest coup of the convention. Those words contain the code of the writers' secret hope that, notwithstanding the social context of their time, which could not permit the fulfillment of the mandate, their goal would be fulfilled on a future day. That day may have come for many; it has yet to come for all.

7. THE BILL OF RIGHTS

The Bill of Rights, comprising the first ten articles (amendments) to the Constitution, became the vehicle for a dynamic democracy. It not only gave the Constitution continuous life, it also allowed for the implementation of the goal inherent in "We, the people".

Of the articles contained in the Bill of Rights, the first and second seem to have generated the greatest number of discussions and controversies. Yet, though the language seems rather clear, the subject treated in each has roots if not precedence in previous documents or in other deliberations.

With reference to the second article, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" really deals with the issue on the use of arms and has two parts: arms needed by units of a militia for "the security of a free State," and arms needed by individuals for personal protection and as tools for acquiring food. One is organizational, the other is individual and both fall into complemental ratio according to individual need and societal changes. In those days, it was naturally necessary for individuals to bear arms; today, that requirement does not exist because guns are not often used for personal protection or to acquire food. Instead, they are used by one individual to kill another, all too often for no compelling reason. This article does not give carte blanche for the uncontrolled ownership of guns because our individual situations are no longer similar to those of the days of our Founding Fathers.

As for religion, all European nations had, what has come to be known as, a state religion or established church through which a given religion received state endorsement. The Founding Fathers knew too well the role that established churches had served. As the tool of government, oppression and repression in the name of God often became commonplace practice. Not that, on the other hand, the authors wished to enhance the role of religion in any way. But when they prohibited Congress, and all other legislative bodies emanating from the Constitution, from "prohibiting the free exercise thereof", in essence, they allowed the enhancement of religion itself.

How could a state religion not be the arm of the government? The Magna Charta came into being precisely because King John wanted his own man to be the Archbishop of Canterbury. And it was Stephen Langton, who, appointed by the Pope according to church election procedures, succeeded in reducing John's power by leading the feudal barons in coming up with the Magna Charta, intended to favor, enhance and guarantee their status and that of the church. In the long run, however, King John won out. With the rise of the Anglican church, the Archbishop was appointed by the King or Queen–a practice that changed only in the latter part of the 20th century when Queen Elizabeth allowed the Bishop to be elected by his peers.

As for the Founding Fathers, these kinds of situations could only be prevented by prohibiting the establishment of a state church, and by guaranteeing its "free exercise thereof". They must have recognized the futility in legislating on things of religious faith. Even in the most disciplined of religions, there are always as many variations in practice and intent as there are members. However small, unanimity in any area is practically impossible. Legislating on issues as school prayer is tantamount to subverting the Constitution.

8. AMENDMENTS TO THE CONSTITUTION

These Articles of Amendment, generally considered those ratified after the first ten articles of the Bill of Rights, comprise Article XI ratified in 1794 to Article XXVI ratified in 1971. Several other amendments were also proposed but were not ratified, the latest being the ERA–Equal Rights Amendment.

The amendments, reflecting needs of an evolving society, keep the Constitution alive. Of these, the most important–because it complements the Preamble of the Constitution, is Article XIII which abolishes slavery and involuntary servitude. This Amendment was also the most painful to achieve.

Projected through a hard-fought Civil War that almost divided the country into two or more parts, the Amendment took shape in the heart of Abraham Lincoln with his Proclamation, and finally ratified in 1865 as Article XIII. It logically brought about the following two amendments.

Articles XIV, which made "persons born or naturalized in the United States...citizens", also prohibited states from abridging or depriving "any person of life, liberty, or property". And, with Article XV, the citizens were granted the right to vote.

Thus, with these amendments, the fulfillment of the Constitution's Preamble comes closer and closer to full realization. At least, that may have been the intention of the Founding Fathers.

9. EMANCIPATION PROCLAMATION

The Emancipation Proclamation is the single most important document by an individual who, with one stroke of the pen, came closest to fulfilling the mandated democratic idealism of the Preamble. With the ratification of the Articles above, America came even closer. Yet, neither the heart of Lincoln nor the wisdom of the Legislature were enough to cut across human bias and racism, and it is doubtful that bias and racism will ever disappear. These human attributes of negativity in the form of skin colors or body shapes or gender are the driving force at many levels of society, equally practiced within and between the races. We are all guilty of it.

The attainment of our Constitution's mandate, therefore, remains elusive, in spite of individuals like Beccaria, John Adams, James Wilson, James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Martin Luther King, to name a few. They represent the spark and the hope that one day, we may all realize our mandated democratic idealism in "We, the People...", to the extent that labels of religion, race, gender, and adult age will not be considered for employment in the private or public sector, or for participation in any organization emanating from the Constitution. The Emancipation Proclamation, therefore, has yet to be implemented. When that happens, the Constitution's mandate will have been fulfilled.

10. PROMISSORY NOTE

America came close to our Constitution's fulfillment in the 1960 decade when Martin Luther King, Jr. delivered his Promissory Note "I have a dream speech" of August 28, 1963 in which he gave meaning and direction to his Ghandian revolution of non-violence:

I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a Nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skins, but by the conduct of their character.

His words and his actions served to awaken some Americans to the original rights expressed in the Preamble of the Constitution. Yet, though much legislation passed on behalf of Civil Rights, progress was made at legal and theoretical levels; little progress has been made in achieving equitable, practical and wholesome coverage for a great number of Americans living as they do–whites, blacks, native Americans, and Hispanics alike. In view of the little substantive progress, one has to conclude that the changes, having benefited few, have exacerbated the lot of many. Considering the opportunities that America offers, one has to ask why this is happening in view of America's wealth, the basic goodness of its people, and the guiding force inherent in the documents that make America's Democracy possible–why is racism so rampant!

Citing the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, Dr. King claims for himself, for his "four little children" and for all of us the unalienable rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness guaranteed by our documents.

Having created a revolution with his words and deeds, there followed a counter-revolution that has not yet abated. Dr King's supposed followers have created power blocks based on physical attributes rather than on "the conduct of...[one's] character." The counter revolution may have achieved some short-range goals. Surely, for the long range results, power blocks–be they of color, ethnicity, religion or gender, are doomed to failure. Rage should never replace vision. As for Dr. King, his revolution was based on vision; as for his followers, their counter revolution is based on rage and they are, unfortunately, insuring that those rights inherent in "We, the People" remain unattainable. Yet, the potentials are there, both for Dr. King's "four little children" and for all other children, because when equal rights are denied to one, they are denied to all, and the "dream" un-necessarily remains a dream.

DOCUMENTS