The latest dead-tree version of National Review devotes roughly a third of its editorial content to a special section titled “What Happened to the Constitution?”
In his lead-off piece, Charles R. Kesler of Claremont McKenna College notes the degree to which the Constitution has receded from political debates:
[T]he party system itself had been developed in the early 19th century to pit two contenders (occasionally more) against each other for the honor of being the more faithful guardian of the Constitution and Union. Even from today’s distance, it isn’t hard to recall the epic clashes that resulted: the disputes over the constitutionality of a national bank, internal improvements, the extension of slavery, the legality and propriety of secession, civil rights, the definition and limits of interstate commerce, liberty of contract, the constitutionality of the welfare state, the federal authority to desegregate schools, and many others.
What’s different today is that, although it still matters, the Constitution is no longer at the heart of our political debates. Today’s partisans compete to lead the country into a better, more hopeful future, to get the economy moving again, to solve our social problems, even to fundamentally transform the nation. But to live and govern in accordance with the Constitution is not the first item on anybody’s platform, though few would deny, after a moment’s surprise at the question, that of course keeping faith with the Constitution is on the program somewhere ? maybe on page two or three.
In addition to picking up the latest NR to read Kesler’s full article, you might enjoy revisiting constitutional scholar Kevin Gutzman‘s 2008 presentation to a John Locke Foundation Headliner audience, along with his Carolina Journal Radio interview.
