On Friday, at a Tower Center Lecture, what I expected to be a bash of the Tea Party by Dr. Sanford Levinson became an insightful discussion on the Tea Party’s actual value and the crux of national debate: The U.S. Constitution.
Dr. Levinson, who is a professor at the University of Texas law school, spent ample time discussing the basis of political debate today.
He described the value of the Tea Party as their incredible ability to pose questions about the nature of our system of government.
In a very Jeffersonian train of thought, the Tea Party asks, “What is it that the government should be doing to fulfill the wants and needs of the people it governs?”
Using a religious analogy, Levinson set the framework for current and past constitutional debates. The “Protestant Constitutionalists,” as he called them, believe in the primacy of the Constitutional text alone.
In addition, Protestants (from here on I mean in the nonreligious sense) believe that they can participate with the text of the Constitution. The Supreme Court, however, is only one unique opinion on the Constitution, not absolute law.
In contrast, the “Constitutional Catholics” do not necessarily reject the Constitution’s text but put it in its context. They look at the writings and ideas that surround the Constitutions for clarification. For example, the Supreme Court and the progression of laws in this nation are of the utmost importance to people of this persuasion.
The Tea Party falls under the umbrella of Protestant Constitutionalists. The mindset is particularly apparent in the way in which the Tea Party is thought to revere our founding fathers. It is almost religious the way people like Glenn Beck praise the deeds and mindset of people like Jefferson and Washington.
One cannot actually take the Constitution out of the context in which it was written, nor can they refuse to acknowledge that it was not the United States’ first constitution.
The Articles of Confederation were the first attempt at a constitution, and it failed miserably. It could not adapt to the changing needs of the nation; there was not enough power vested in the federal government. In writing the Constitution, there was an acknowledgment of the need for a document that was truly “living.”
Levinson was adamant to point out that although the Constitution does change, it is still one of the most difficult constitutions in the world to amend.
As a shifting document, there are ample opportunities for mistakes. For example, the 17th amendment (direct election of senators) is denounced by Tea Partiers, a point on which Levinson agreed.
The Senate ceased to remain beholden to the state legislatures and became directly accountable to the people. Despite how democratic and “American” this amendment sounds, Levinson described how it was completely anti-federalism.
When the relationship between the federal government and the state governments breaks down, the system on which the US was built begins to crumble. For once, the Tea Party may have a point that cannot be adequately contested by the Left.
Even though it is clear that the US government is dysfunctional, the Tea Party loses its clout and legitimacy because of the pundits that lead it. Though I do not support the Tea Party, I believe it is about time to start listening to them about their concerns about the government.
If one entirely writes off an organization because of its leaders, there are many intelligent voices that will be lost on the wind. The leaders of an organization should be examples of their followers but I am not certain that Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin, or Michele Bachmann accurately represent the Tea Party organization.
There is no levelheaded dialogue between groups about the very nature of the government. On the contrary, shouting across the aisle is more prevalent than calm debate.
We can all argue about healthcare reform, gay-marriage, or the legalization of marijuana all we want, but in the end it is the true, deep, philosophical nature of the Constitution we should be concerned about. If we can answer where the ever-changing Constitution is going, then all the other answers about the extent of power will begin to fall into place.
Michael Dearman is first year philosophy and history major. He can be reached for comments or questions at [email protected].
