Professor Eric Lane from the Hofstra University School of Law spoke to Hamilton students and faculty about the role of the United States Constitution on Thursday, Nov. 8. Lane pointed to the problems created in the current political climate by a lack of respect for a "Constitutional conscience," and suggested a set of lessons from the Constitution that can inform modern U.S. discourse.
Lane came to the topic from a background as both a scholar teaching on constitutional law and as a public servant, including time spent as director of the New York City Charter Revision Commission. As such, his talk focused on the benefits of the Constitution in promoting compromise, an argument drawn from his recent book, The Genius of America, co-authored by Michael Oreskes.
The Constitution is, in Lane's eyes, the "greatest single invention America has ever offered to the world" because it "ushered in the age of democracy." However, Lane stressed that it is the core political values, or "Constitutional conscience," and not the Constitution that created political unity in America. These values include compromise, representation and tolerance for opposing viewpoints, which have helped Americans overcome "tribalism" and work together on national issues.
However, Lane cautioned that Americans are becoming "disconnected from this shared belief in the Constitution." He cited the increased division in the political arena as a symptom, in which the population's desire to come together "in the stratosphere" breaks down to disagreement on fundamental issues of liberties and distribution of wealth. Other examples of a decline in Constitutional belief include distrust in the legislative process (as seen through an expansion of referenda which submit issues to a popular vote rather than Constitutional procedures), and political disengagement. "Compare our participation with any western democracy and it is laughable," Lane said.
Lane attributes these changes to a loss of civic education; while American citizens may still "love" the Constitution, they lack knowledge of its actual content and values. He cited numerous surveys and studies showing the Americans lack basic knowledge of the Constitution; for example, 71 percent of Americans do not know the difference between the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, and more than 70 percent think the right to own pets is an explicit constitutional right. A 2002 government report concluded that the "nation's citizenry is woefully undereducated about the fundamentals of our democracy."
This lack of education becomes a vital problem when powerful figures attempt to go around the Constitution, as Lane sees in the appeal to the "monarchical prerogative" in the George W. Bush and Bill Clinton administrations. He pointed out that the nation has weathered extreme crises, including the Revolutionary War, the Civil War and the Great Depression, all without resorting to an appeal to the rights of kings; Franklin Delano Roosevelt expressly resisted attempts to make him a dictator. Yet during the Bush administration's assertion of monarchical rights in the areas of wiretapping and torture, the Republican Congress was characterized by acquiescence, while the Democratic Congress passed a new far-reaching Patriot Act legalizing warrantless wiretapping in a single day without debate. Lane is troubled that such hasty action suggests, in the words of Senator Robert Byrd, that Congress lacks a sense of "their responsibilities under the Constitution," especially since the Constitution is designed to recognize that "the use of fear in politics is recurring" and to stop legislation guided by fear. Yet when citizens do not know their constitutional rights, they "can't assert themselves" to pressure their representatives to uphold those rights.
Lane is also troubled that the fundamental issue of constitutional rights is "the question no one's asking" during the 2008 election season. He reasons that all presidential candidates, except perhaps New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson, would refuse to explicitly reject the "aggrandized view of executive privilege" that has recently been instituted, simply because it guarantees their power if elected. As such, Lane sees public discourse stuck in the wrong direction.
In an effort to correct that, Lane advanced the "greater lessons" of the Constitution that "reach down into the American story." He first pointed out that the idea of representational government was a "radical" idea when it was purposed by the Framers of the Constitution. Even though representation was not initially wide-spread, being limited to free white males, Lane argued that the notion of representation was central to later fights for civil rights. This notion of representation guarantees part of the moral weight of the Constitutional Conscience; more representation and more equality are viewed as morally good outcomes by American citizens.
Lane then pointed to five vital lessons drawn from the Constitution. The first is that "everyone is selfish." While the Declaration of Independence "is a utopian moment," the Constitution itself rejects the idea that Americans are "uniquely virtuous." Secondly, however, "people are willing to trade one benefit for another," which the founders recognized in their construction of the Constitution to mediate between divergent interests.
Lane's third lesson holds that in American government the "process is more important than product," meaning that legislative consensus and compromise is fundamental to the system. According to Lane, empirical studies show that people who engage in a consensus-building decision-making process will respect the results of the process even if they personally disagree with those results. Therefore, the legislative process is vital to American unity. Lane said Hillary Clinton learned this at her peril when she failed to pass a health care bill thorough a friendly Congress in 1993 because of her lack of dialogue with legislators. Thus, all amendments to the Constitution except the 13th, 18th and 21st are focused on improving the process or expanding the number of people involved.
Lane's fourth lesson was that people need to be engaged in politics, since more participation increases happiness with the outcomes of consensus.
Finally, Lane argued that "every interest is a special interest." In other words, American politics inherently include factions, and no group can claim to speak for the overall people. This reinforces the value of consensus in negotiating between these groups.
Lane concluded by asking how the lessons of the framers could still be relevant today. He argued that while technological change has increased the speed of events, there is "no evidence that people have changed; people still love power." Lane sees the answers within support for the U.S. Constitution, and urged students to implement these principles to support an order that the framers predicted.
-- by Kye Lippold `10
Lane came to the topic from a background as both a scholar teaching on constitutional law and as a public servant, including time spent as director of the New York City Charter Revision Commission. As such, his talk focused on the benefits of the Constitution in promoting compromise, an argument drawn from his recent book, The Genius of America, co-authored by Michael Oreskes.
The Constitution is, in Lane's eyes, the "greatest single invention America has ever offered to the world" because it "ushered in the age of democracy." However, Lane stressed that it is the core political values, or "Constitutional conscience," and not the Constitution that created political unity in America. These values include compromise, representation and tolerance for opposing viewpoints, which have helped Americans overcome "tribalism" and work together on national issues.
However, Lane cautioned that Americans are becoming "disconnected from this shared belief in the Constitution." He cited the increased division in the political arena as a symptom, in which the population's desire to come together "in the stratosphere" breaks down to disagreement on fundamental issues of liberties and distribution of wealth. Other examples of a decline in Constitutional belief include distrust in the legislative process (as seen through an expansion of referenda which submit issues to a popular vote rather than Constitutional procedures), and political disengagement. "Compare our participation with any western democracy and it is laughable," Lane said.
Lane attributes these changes to a loss of civic education; while American citizens may still "love" the Constitution, they lack knowledge of its actual content and values. He cited numerous surveys and studies showing the Americans lack basic knowledge of the Constitution; for example, 71 percent of Americans do not know the difference between the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, and more than 70 percent think the right to own pets is an explicit constitutional right. A 2002 government report concluded that the "nation's citizenry is woefully undereducated about the fundamentals of our democracy."
This lack of education becomes a vital problem when powerful figures attempt to go around the Constitution, as Lane sees in the appeal to the "monarchical prerogative" in the George W. Bush and Bill Clinton administrations. He pointed out that the nation has weathered extreme crises, including the Revolutionary War, the Civil War and the Great Depression, all without resorting to an appeal to the rights of kings; Franklin Delano Roosevelt expressly resisted attempts to make him a dictator. Yet during the Bush administration's assertion of monarchical rights in the areas of wiretapping and torture, the Republican Congress was characterized by acquiescence, while the Democratic Congress passed a new far-reaching Patriot Act legalizing warrantless wiretapping in a single day without debate. Lane is troubled that such hasty action suggests, in the words of Senator Robert Byrd, that Congress lacks a sense of "their responsibilities under the Constitution," especially since the Constitution is designed to recognize that "the use of fear in politics is recurring" and to stop legislation guided by fear. Yet when citizens do not know their constitutional rights, they "can't assert themselves" to pressure their representatives to uphold those rights.
Lane is also troubled that the fundamental issue of constitutional rights is "the question no one's asking" during the 2008 election season. He reasons that all presidential candidates, except perhaps New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson, would refuse to explicitly reject the "aggrandized view of executive privilege" that has recently been instituted, simply because it guarantees their power if elected. As such, Lane sees public discourse stuck in the wrong direction.
In an effort to correct that, Lane advanced the "greater lessons" of the Constitution that "reach down into the American story." He first pointed out that the idea of representational government was a "radical" idea when it was purposed by the Framers of the Constitution. Even though representation was not initially wide-spread, being limited to free white males, Lane argued that the notion of representation was central to later fights for civil rights. This notion of representation guarantees part of the moral weight of the Constitutional Conscience; more representation and more equality are viewed as morally good outcomes by American citizens.
Lane then pointed to five vital lessons drawn from the Constitution. The first is that "everyone is selfish." While the Declaration of Independence "is a utopian moment," the Constitution itself rejects the idea that Americans are "uniquely virtuous." Secondly, however, "people are willing to trade one benefit for another," which the founders recognized in their construction of the Constitution to mediate between divergent interests.
Lane's third lesson holds that in American government the "process is more important than product," meaning that legislative consensus and compromise is fundamental to the system. According to Lane, empirical studies show that people who engage in a consensus-building decision-making process will respect the results of the process even if they personally disagree with those results. Therefore, the legislative process is vital to American unity. Lane said Hillary Clinton learned this at her peril when she failed to pass a health care bill thorough a friendly Congress in 1993 because of her lack of dialogue with legislators. Thus, all amendments to the Constitution except the 13th, 18th and 21st are focused on improving the process or expanding the number of people involved.
Lane's fourth lesson was that people need to be engaged in politics, since more participation increases happiness with the outcomes of consensus.
Finally, Lane argued that "every interest is a special interest." In other words, American politics inherently include factions, and no group can claim to speak for the overall people. This reinforces the value of consensus in negotiating between these groups.
Lane concluded by asking how the lessons of the framers could still be relevant today. He argued that while technological change has increased the speed of events, there is "no evidence that people have changed; people still love power." Lane sees the answers within support for the U.S. Constitution, and urged students to implement these principles to support an order that the framers predicted.
-- by Kye Lippold `10
