What Would the Founders Say?

The United States Constitution is the oldest written national constitution still in force in the world. Ratified by the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia on September 17, 1787, it was established as – and remains – the basis of all U.S. laws. To say that a law is “unconstitutional” means that it has no power and cannot be enforced.

While Americans can take pride in the fact that their Constitution has been in force for 224 years, its very age presents some problems. Since it was written, the English language has changed somewhat, causing confusion about the original meaning or intent of certain phrases or entire sections. There are also some who feel that the Constitution is outdated, and should be treated as a “living document,” by which they mean that it should be interpreted in light of modern social values and technology, not on the basis of those of the 18th century.

Larry Schweikart belongs to the “original intent” school of Constitutional law. This approach assumes that the Constitution says what its authors meant and it means what they wrote, and that the Constitution should be followed in all particulars. The only other options are to amend the Constitution (which is, and was always meant to be, a long and arduous process) or abandon it altogether and write a new one.

A second constitutional convention has been proposed many times over the past two centuries, but has never progressed beyond the talking stage. The disruption to the country and the potential dangers it would present to basic American freedoms are seen as too great to risk. Instead, as Schweikart proposes to do in his book: “What Would the Founders Say?: A Patriot’s Answers to America’s Most Pressing Problems”, it is possible to look at documents contemporary with the original Constitution and the Bill of Rights (the first 10 amendments, ratified on December 15, 1791) to understand the original intent of the founders, and therefore the basis of the Constitution which they drafted.

Organized into ten chapters, the author addresses some major issues being debated today: Freedom of religion, funding for education, environmental law, health care, the economy (including employment rates and corporate bail-outs), the banks, the national debt and government borrowing, the use of military power and gun ownership rights. Agree with him or not, you can’t say that Schweikart shies away from the hot-button issues.

His approach is to discuss the world in which the founders – the authors of the Constitution – lived in, including their contemporary society and recent history. He describes the issues with which they struggled and the forces and dangers they perceived as being important enough to address in the Constitution. By quoting from the books, articles, letters and even private journals that these men (and, yes, they were all men) left behind, we can begin to understand their state of mind, their philosophies (plural, because they had differing opinions) and their goals. Although they were living, planning and writing more than 200 years ago, they were still operating in a society that was not really that much different than ours today, and so can be understood to a very great extent in our terms. Unless you believe that human nature has fundamentally changed since 1787, then their concern about hunger for power, greed, selfishness and other follies can be seen in the document they wrote to help their generation and those to come form a “more perfect union.” And make no mistake: We, their future generations, were very much on their minds when they wrote the Constitution.

Schweikart has performed an important task by bringing together the evidence of the thoughts and hopes of the founders, in their own words, and excellent job in his commentary. Well-researched and carefully written, this book is timely and useful. It has immediate relevance to what is being reported and discussed today.

In many ways, What Would the Founders Say? is as much an exploration into the principles of the modern Tea Party as it is the Constitution. Followers of the Tea Party movement are often misunderstood, and often demonized, by those who disagree with their core beliefs. The author shows, through this book, that this movement is neither radical nor ignorant; his writing is searching, lucid and to the point. Considering that there is every indication that the Tea Party – and others who do not identify directly with it, but who share its values – are not going to go away, it is useful to understand their beliefs and approach to the government.