Blue Collar Muse

Near the beginning of The Declaration of Independence, these words appear.

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.

It is here, a 30 second read into the birth of our nation, we find the most important right which government is to secure, the Pursuit of Happiness.

The Declaration establishes three foundational rights. The Constitution generally amplifies them, outlining ways government may not prevent us from exercising them. Our Right to Life is partially expressed in our Right to Keep and Bear Arms to defend that Life if threatened. Our Right to Liberty is partially expressed in our Right to Due Process to ensure any restraint on that Liberty is just.

One Right listed in the Declaration is different. It has no amplification in the Bill of Rights. The least discussed, it is the most important - the Pursuit of Happiness.

The Pursuit of Happiness is different in that it guarantees nothing. Other Rights we enjoy enumerate a concrete something. We have Freedom of Speech. Speech is a “something” that is mine. Just so with Life, Liberty, to Bear Arms, the Press - at the end of each we find something tangible. Not so with the Pursuit of Happiness.

Pursuing Happiness is the only Right which does not define an outcome. We are not guaranteed Happiness, just the Pursuit of it. We are not assured the road will not be difficult or poorly maintained, merely that it is there to be traveled. Because of this, the Pursuit of Happiness is our most precious Right. Because phrased another way, it guarantees our Right to Fail.

Happiness is different for every man. Our dreams are as individual as we are. It would have been folly to try to define Happiness; folly to determine the best path to Pursue it. Pursuits may be long or short; easy or difficult; straightforward or complicated. While I am grateful for the straightforward, short and easy ones, it is the value in the complicated, long and difficult ones which the Declaration anticipated. Because the Pursuits teaching us the most, both building and revealing character; producing the most opportunity for us, are the difficult ones or the ones we fail to complete at all.

Thomas Edison tried over 4,000 different prototypes of the light bulb before realizing his goal. He is reported to have said, “I have not failed 4,000 times. I have discovered 4,000 ways not to create an incandescent light bulb!” Undaunted by failing in his Pursuit, Edison learned from each. It was because of, not in spite of, his failures, that he succeeded. Even the simplest Pursuits face obstacles. A man’s response to them determines not just his success in Pursuit of that specific Happiness. It determines his success for all future Pursuits as well.

Do we persist in adversity? Do we work as hard in anonymity as we do in the limelight? Do we collaborate or insist on solo Pursuits? There are a myriad lessons to be learned. Most of them are only learned through failure. As it is said, “Most good judgement comes from experience! Most experience comes from bad judgement!”

It is here where a man’s success or failure in his various Pursuits is determined. Because along with recognizing man’s Rights, the Declaration notes men institute government to secure them and that government does so only with the consent of the governed. It thus becomes vital for the governed to so value the Right to Fail they refuse to consent to any plan by government to take it from them. They must consent to striving in an environment, secured by government, in which failure is a valued result.

If We The People consent to government which takes away our Right to Fail, we consent to government which will take away our other Rights as well. Securing a government with power to eradicate our individual Pursuits, we secure a government with power to define our individual Happiness. When Happiness is defined for the many by government, individuals must surrender the rest of their Rights to facilitate the government’s Pursuit. Those refusing to do so are threats both to government and the governed. We all know how threats are dealt with.

This is the question Americans must answer. Will we be allowed to fail or not? The Left, and far too many on the Right, say, “No! No one must fail!” There remains, however, a minority which understands the value in failure. It understands the pain in little failures along the way are motivation to great Happiness at the end of the Pursuit! It understands failure is not an impediment to Happiness, it is a stepping stone to a successful Pursuit. It knows temporary suffering in a failure while Pursuing does not compare to the eternal suffering in failing to Pursue at all.

Celebrating your Independence today, understand what it means to be Independent! It means your success or failure in the Pursuit of Happiness depends on you, not the government. It means you not only can, but will, fail while in Pursuit. When your Rights are secured by government and not defined by it, you embrace failure as a blessing and not a curse, as a teacher and not a thief. You truly have Life, you are truly at Liberty, you have the best chance for a successful Pursuit!

In college, I hung a poster on my wall which read, “A ship in a harbor is safe. But that is not what ships were made for!” Enjoy your Pursuit! Godspeed!

Blue Collar Muse

Popularity: 31% [?]

In discussions of Constitutional interpretation, an interesting concept has turned up in the last few years in the context of a why a position is or is not Constitutional. It’s stated in some form of the idea that “the Constitution is a living document”.

The idea has appeal for a variety of reasons. The language is positive - our founding document is portrayed as living and vibrant, not stodgy and decrepit. It’s flexible, adaptable and able to change with the times. In today’s tech jargon, it’s 2.0; constantly updating to meet the freshest ideas and developments. Most people know one of the basic characteristics of the definition of life is anything which is alive, grows! If something stops growing it is either dead or dying. The intentional use of such language paints a picture of the document at the heart of our Republic as vibrant and energetic!. By association, changes made to that document or in its name are colored with the same brush. The intent is to have such changes viewed as proper and necessary to keep America in step with the times.

However, I find such an understanding of the Constitution, and legal rulings or private opinions based on it, to be deeply flawed in their understanding of both the content and the role of the Constitution. At its root, such a view finds the Constitution, as originally conceived and constructed, insufficient to address the challenges it faces in a more modern world. I cannot disagree more.

The first challenge faced by the idea of the Constituition as a living document is the basic simplicity of the document itself. This is not some lengthy work filled with hidden meaning. It was intended for public consumption. In fact, the entire original document was printed on just 4 pages of the Pennsylvania Packet and Daily Advertiser newspaper two days after it was signed. To give all citizens access to the document that would govern them, the text was routinely printed in other newspapers around the country. The assumption would seem to have been that readers would easily understand it. We continue that assumption today. Politicians and soldiers swear to defend the Constitution from its enemies. If it is difficult to understand and constantly changing, how can a man know who those enemies are? How can any particular view be said to be Constitutional or not if the Constitution itself is continually subject to review?

The second problem arises from the nature of the Constitution itself. Buildings are complex physical things, skyscrapers even more so. Interestingly, the largest ones, despite being made of steel and concrete, are flexible. The Empire State Building, for example, sways and moves at the top and was designed to do so. Its foundation, however, does not move. In fact, it is the stability of the foundation which permits the top to flex in the changing environment in which it continually finds itself. Just so, the Constitution is a foundational document, not one affected by passing environmental changes. It provides long term legal and cultural stability shielding us from the vagaries of societal fads.

Proclaiming the Constitution a living document is a deception. Whether by design or chance, the practical result of such a proclamation is separating citizens from their Constitutionally afforded protections. This creates a situation rife with potential for men with an agenda other than Liberty to oppress their countrymen. The Constitution was conceived and created to prevent government from trampling on the rights of men. Those rights were not granted to men by the Constitution. Rather they are recognized by the Constitution as being granted to all men by God. As such they are inviolate insofar as US law is concerned. Redefining the Constitution as a living document, capable of change and reinterpretation as each new generation sees fit, strips the eternal power of Divine authority from the document and subtitutes ever changing human reason as the standard by which we judge.

It is not the Constitution which lives and breathes, it is the men which it rules who do so. With each party in its proper place, our values are firmly anchored and we greet a changing future confident that American ideals are well guarded. Swapping the roles, however, leaves us in the precarious place our country and culture currently find themselves. Standing on a shifting foundation, we flail about to keep our balance in a changing world. To cope, we make our Constitution say things it clearly does not as in the case of Roe v. Wade and make it silent on things to which it clearly speaks as in the case of Kelo v. New London.

The Constitution as a living document is a lie which threatens our Liberty as men and our existence as a nation. That threat must be opposed with the same passion and urgency our Founding Fathers opposed the enemies of Liberty which fought them so long ago. Either that, or we agree to submit to the whims of whichever King ends up on tomorrow’s throne. Asked by citizens what sort of government the delegates had created for America, Benjamin Franklin famously replied, “A republic, if you can keep it!” He knew then what I say now - there exist those who would steal our Liberty! I don’t intend to allow that to happen without a fight. So - to the advocates of a living Constitution; to those bending the Constitution to fit their own views; to those seeking to steal my Liberty, and; to those standing at a distance and suggesting I surrender my rights, I echo the response of Leonidas to Xerxes when it was suggested the Spartans at Thermopylae surrender their weapons. I say, “Molon labe!” - “Come and get them!”

Blue

Popularity: 50% [?]