Framers’ Intent and Compromise
Kristie Camp
By now, everyone who knows me well knows that I have become obsessed with Alexander Hamilton as a result of Lin-Manuel Miranda’s Broadway hit musical Hamilton. Yet, those who really know me also know that I have been enamored with the American Revolution and the Founding Fathers forever. I remember when I first learned about Alexander Hamilton from Mrs. Janie Putnam’s AP US History class at Boiling Springs High School back in 1987-1988. Even then, I remember developing a crush on just the image he portrayed and his beautiful name and his tragic death. I am pretty sure Mrs. Putnam was a Jeffersonian, and I adore TJ, as well, but Alexander Hamilton holds a special place in my heart. So, naturally, when Miranda bragged on the compelling narrative of Ron Chernow’s biography of Hamilton (aptly named Alexander Hamilton), I had to read it. And I am still in the middle of it, but his words inspire so much conversation from me that I am constantly writing in the margins and posting quips on Facebook.
In fact, the section I read this morning about the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia has sent me into a tailspin of frustration and aggravation at our present government. Again, always the fan of the Revolution itself, I hadn’t spent much time studying the Constitutional Convention. I have always loved studying the Constitution itself, and as a pre-law student with a political science minor in my undergraduate studies, I took as many classes as I could on constitutional law and the US Supreme Court and their most famous landmark cases. In fact, the US Supreme Court is my favorite branch of government (if people have those) because they were supposed to be removed from political bias by their lifetime appointments so they could concentrate of fulfilling the framers’ intent of the words created in the US Constitution. By no means am I a Constitutional scholar, however, and I know those who are may view my comments as naïve or even ignorant. Maybe I am naïve or even ignorant, but I know our current governmental situation is heaving for breath, and I know that we are facing more than one political crisis in America, so maybe looking backward might help us heal as we move forward.
With my idealistic view in mind, I read these words from Ron Chernow: “It is hard to believe that the Committee of Style and Arrangement took only four days to burnish syllables that were to be painstakingly explicated by future generations” (240). For real! “Explicated” is quite a tame way of explaining what scholars and pundits and politicians do when trying to promote their own view of the Constitution. Granted, the framers debated for months on exactly what went into the Constitution, but the crafting of sentences, the choosing of words, the developing of phrases that define America and American values took only four days (and by a committee, no less! A committee of teachers deciding on a grading policy or curriculum guide often takes more than four days in my experience). Yet, we argue incessantly over what the framers truly wanted, the true meanings of their words. The First and Second Amendments especially (and many of the others, of course) become battlegrounds for supposedly educated citizens to fight for their personal preference of modern policy by receiving the ringing endorsement of one of our glorious and brilliant Founding Fathers (again, whom I adore and always view in a light near to a halo). Certainly, they chose their words with care and deliberation, and certainly, we would do well to follow the Founding Fathers since they did such a darn good job of creating our country. Yet, for those who ardently argue that sticking to exactly what the framers meant might have a problem with Chernow’s next statement: “The objective was to make the document short and flexible, its language specific enough to constrain abuses but general enough to allow room for growth” (240). Allow room for growth. Flexible. I would argue that for the Constitution to have lasted for more than 200 years, especially since “Washington, for one, doubted that the new federal government would survive twenty years,” (241) they achieved their goal of making it flexible and amenable to growth. Yet, where does that leave the framers’ intent? Are we wasting our time using that approach? Would the framers indeed want us to take their words and apply them to our modern times? Preserve the same values they sought to preserve, but not unnecessarily bind our country in a way that inhibits progress by basing our decisions on the knowledge of these brilliant men, yet still men trapped in a very different world of the late 1700s? Some may argue that preserving the same values of the framers is the same concept as preserving framers’ intent, which I can accept, but when we see how they constructed the Constitution, we learn an even greater lesson on how to follow in the footsteps of the framers.
Chernow ends his chapter on the Constitutional Convention, “August and Respectable Assembly,” with these words: “In fact, the Constitution represented a glorious compromise for every signer. This flexibility has always been honored as a sign of political maturity…,” and despite having some objections to the final product, “Hamilton remained utterly true to his pledge that he would do everything in his power to see the Constitution successfully implemented. He never wavered either in public or in private.” Wow. These men met in Philadelphia with very different ideas of how to form the new American government. They all represented very different regions and values and economic systems. They argued for months to get their own region represented and in hopes of securing advantage for their home states. Yet, in the end, they compromised. No one person got his own way; no one plan prevailed. And when they couldn’t agree, they didn’t disband and forget the whole endeavor and curse each other in the media. Well, they cursed each other in the media all the time, from beginning to end, yet they still compromised. Despite their differences, they came through with a plan after they exhausted in debate all individual preferences. When in our modern world did compromise move from “a sign of political maturity” to a sign of weakness?
So, here is my question. Why can’t we honor the framers’ intent by honoring their methods? We won’t stop name calling (because they didn’t), and we won’t stop fighting for individual interests (because they weren’t above that, either). But we can compromise. We can come to a meeting ground somewhere in the middle for progress that benefits the country as a whole. We can keep moving forward if we keep our minds on what matters: preserving America. Offering a free society that can continue to grow and progress. Being flexible enough to know that America changes and that a viable nation will change in order to keep living. Now, we won’t agree on exactly what that means, and neithr did the framers. We have to talk it out and then come to a place we can meet and establish common ground. Preserving the methods of the framers seems far more valuable to me than preserving a mindset of the 18th century. If they could see into the future, why can’t we?
And the honorable participants in law making and applying Constitutional values will support the compromise, even if they didn’t get exactly what they wanted in the bargain. Isn’t that how fruitful relationships work? We come to an impasse with a friend or spouse, and we argue, but after the argument, we are each willing to give up something we want for the preservation of the friendship and partnership. And then we move forward. The relationship dissolves, however, or at least begins to erode, if one person holds on relentlessly to his or her special demand. If one person refuses to compromise, the other is left feeling devalued and dishonored, and the relationship becomes tainted a little. When one side gives continually and never receives in return, the relationship lives on death row.
I just don’t understand why we have allowed our political relationships to devolve as they have. Are we so set on getting our way that we stomp and throw temper tantrums and hold our breaths until we pass out? And still, the Brussel sprouts sit on the plate, growing cold, and we sit staring at them, refusing to eat them, but still sitting at the table instead of running outside to play. Maybe if we took a bite of the Brussel sprout, made that first step at reconciliation, we could then make a suggestion for the next dinner to have a different vegetable. Now, the server will have to be open to compromise, as well, and be willing to try green beans tomorrow. But then, we all get to go outside and play.
Kristie Camp
By now, everyone who knows me well knows that I have become obsessed with Alexander Hamilton as a result of Lin-Manuel Miranda’s Broadway hit musical Hamilton. Yet, those who really know me also know that I have been enamored with the American Revolution and the Founding Fathers forever. I remember when I first learned about Alexander Hamilton from Mrs. Janie Putnam’s AP US History class at Boiling Springs High School back in 1987-1988. Even then, I remember developing a crush on just the image he portrayed and his beautiful name and his tragic death. I am pretty sure Mrs. Putnam was a Jeffersonian, and I adore TJ, as well, but Alexander Hamilton holds a special place in my heart. So, naturally, when Miranda bragged on the compelling narrative of Ron Chernow’s biography of Hamilton (aptly named Alexander Hamilton), I had to read it. And I am still in the middle of it, but his words inspire so much conversation from me that I am constantly writing in the margins and posting quips on Facebook.
In fact, the section I read this morning about the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia has sent me into a tailspin of frustration and aggravation at our present government. Again, always the fan of the Revolution itself, I hadn’t spent much time studying the Constitutional Convention. I have always loved studying the Constitution itself, and as a pre-law student with a political science minor in my undergraduate studies, I took as many classes as I could on constitutional law and the US Supreme Court and their most famous landmark cases. In fact, the US Supreme Court is my favorite branch of government (if people have those) because they were supposed to be removed from political bias by their lifetime appointments so they could concentrate of fulfilling the framers’ intent of the words created in the US Constitution. By no means am I a Constitutional scholar, however, and I know those who are may view my comments as naïve or even ignorant. Maybe I am naïve or even ignorant, but I know our current governmental situation is heaving for breath, and I know that we are facing more than one political crisis in America, so maybe looking backward might help us heal as we move forward.
With my idealistic view in mind, I read these words from Ron Chernow: “It is hard to believe that the Committee of Style and Arrangement took only four days to burnish syllables that were to be painstakingly explicated by future generations” (240). For real! “Explicated” is quite a tame way of explaining what scholars and pundits and politicians do when trying to promote their own view of the Constitution. Granted, the framers debated for months on exactly what went into the Constitution, but the crafting of sentences, the choosing of words, the developing of phrases that define America and American values took only four days (and by a committee, no less! A committee of teachers deciding on a grading policy or curriculum guide often takes more than four days in my experience). Yet, we argue incessantly over what the framers truly wanted, the true meanings of their words. The First and Second Amendments especially (and many of the others, of course) become battlegrounds for supposedly educated citizens to fight for their personal preference of modern policy by receiving the ringing endorsement of one of our glorious and brilliant Founding Fathers (again, whom I adore and always view in a light near to a halo). Certainly, they chose their words with care and deliberation, and certainly, we would do well to follow the Founding Fathers since they did such a darn good job of creating our country. Yet, for those who ardently argue that sticking to exactly what the framers meant might have a problem with Chernow’s next statement: “The objective was to make the document short and flexible, its language specific enough to constrain abuses but general enough to allow room for growth” (240). Allow room for growth. Flexible. I would argue that for the Constitution to have lasted for more than 200 years, especially since “Washington, for one, doubted that the new federal government would survive twenty years,” (241) they achieved their goal of making it flexible and amenable to growth. Yet, where does that leave the framers’ intent? Are we wasting our time using that approach? Would the framers indeed want us to take their words and apply them to our modern times? Preserve the same values they sought to preserve, but not unnecessarily bind our country in a way that inhibits progress by basing our decisions on the knowledge of these brilliant men, yet still men trapped in a very different world of the late 1700s? Some may argue that preserving the same values of the framers is the same concept as preserving framers’ intent, which I can accept, but when we see how they constructed the Constitution, we learn an even greater lesson on how to follow in the footsteps of the framers.
Chernow ends his chapter on the Constitutional Convention, “August and Respectable Assembly,” with these words: “In fact, the Constitution represented a glorious compromise for every signer. This flexibility has always been honored as a sign of political maturity…,” and despite having some objections to the final product, “Hamilton remained utterly true to his pledge that he would do everything in his power to see the Constitution successfully implemented. He never wavered either in public or in private.” Wow. These men met in Philadelphia with very different ideas of how to form the new American government. They all represented very different regions and values and economic systems. They argued for months to get their own region represented and in hopes of securing advantage for their home states. Yet, in the end, they compromised. No one person got his own way; no one plan prevailed. And when they couldn’t agree, they didn’t disband and forget the whole endeavor and curse each other in the media. Well, they cursed each other in the media all the time, from beginning to end, yet they still compromised. Despite their differences, they came through with a plan after they exhausted in debate all individual preferences. When in our modern world did compromise move from “a sign of political maturity” to a sign of weakness?
So, here is my question. Why can’t we honor the framers’ intent by honoring their methods? We won’t stop name calling (because they didn’t), and we won’t stop fighting for individual interests (because they weren’t above that, either). But we can compromise. We can come to a meeting ground somewhere in the middle for progress that benefits the country as a whole. We can keep moving forward if we keep our minds on what matters: preserving America. Offering a free society that can continue to grow and progress. Being flexible enough to know that America changes and that a viable nation will change in order to keep living. Now, we won’t agree on exactly what that means, and neithr did the framers. We have to talk it out and then come to a place we can meet and establish common ground. Preserving the methods of the framers seems far more valuable to me than preserving a mindset of the 18th century. If they could see into the future, why can’t we?
And the honorable participants in law making and applying Constitutional values will support the compromise, even if they didn’t get exactly what they wanted in the bargain. Isn’t that how fruitful relationships work? We come to an impasse with a friend or spouse, and we argue, but after the argument, we are each willing to give up something we want for the preservation of the friendship and partnership. And then we move forward. The relationship dissolves, however, or at least begins to erode, if one person holds on relentlessly to his or her special demand. If one person refuses to compromise, the other is left feeling devalued and dishonored, and the relationship becomes tainted a little. When one side gives continually and never receives in return, the relationship lives on death row.
I just don’t understand why we have allowed our political relationships to devolve as they have. Are we so set on getting our way that we stomp and throw temper tantrums and hold our breaths until we pass out? And still, the Brussel sprouts sit on the plate, growing cold, and we sit staring at them, refusing to eat them, but still sitting at the table instead of running outside to play. Maybe if we took a bite of the Brussel sprout, made that first step at reconciliation, we could then make a suggestion for the next dinner to have a different vegetable. Now, the server will have to be open to compromise, as well, and be willing to try green beans tomorrow. But then, we all get to go outside and play.
Thursday, July 7, 2016
Kristie Camp 