There's been a good deal of talk about a Constitutional convention and the overhaul of what now appears to be a flawed and inadequate document responsible for plunging us into disarray. Cheerful academics have been discussing this for years. James Madison has been quoted over and over again.
The Center for American Progress's Ian Milhiser lays out a case for adopting some features of the South African constitution which opens with the phrase "We, the people of South Africa, Recognise the injustices of our past." America has a lot to recognize when it comes to injustices, so that lead-in is just as relevant here as anywhere. As Milhiser reminds us, we could use the reminder that governments go wrong.
He explains:
...Our Constitution begins by laying out the structure of government. Article I is Congress, Article II the executive branch, Article III the judiciary. The concept of explicitly protected individual rights was largely an afterthought. The Bill of Rights was not ratified until a few years after the Constitution went into effect, and it was originally understood only to place limits on the federal government — not the states. ...Milhiser,ThinkProgress
This has left us in the odd position of having to define who's human and who's only part human, or whether homosexuality means less equal or working class means less free.
The South African Constitution, by contrast, devotes 32 different articles to individual rights before it even mentions the structure of government. While America’s founders were primarily worried about how lawmakers would be selected and what powers they would and would not have, South Africa’s Constitution begins with a statement of human rights. It’s drafters wanted first and foremost to ensure that nothing like apartheid would ever exist again.
One obvious difference between South Africa’s constitution and ours is the sheer breadth of the rights protected by their national charter. Familiar rights such as the rights to equality, faith, free speech and privacy against unreasonable searches and seizures are all protected by the South African Constitution, but so is a right to “fair labour practices,” to “form and join a trade union,” to “an environment that is not harmful to . . . health or well-being,” and to “sufficient food and water.” As a reminder than many South Africans endured a kind of dehumanization that few Americans could even comprehend, their Constitution also protects rights such as the right “to a name and a nationality from birth” and to “not to be used directly in armed conflict” while still a child.
There are valid arguments against defining positive rights such as the right to food or a healthy environment in a constitution — these sorts of rights are rarely self-executing, and ultimately will depend on the nation’s legislature enacting sensible laws. But Americans could learn a great deal from how precisely many of the rights protected by the South African Constitution are defined. ...Milhiser,ThinkProgress
Indeed. But here's the rub, the hitch that continues to bother me when we talk about changing the system. We forget that, in effect, "L'état c'est nous." The dictatorship we have come to live in here is a tyranny based on "moi."
"Me" has become more than a little greedy, entitled, and more than a bit lazy when it comes to self-governance. We want a government that, on the one hand, makes things easier for us but who -- on the other hand -- doesn't demand anything from us. We grumble over taxes; we vote only if it's convenient or momentarily interesting. Too many of us want the rights for me but only the obligations for them.
We understood this, at least for a moment, when we saw the dog on the roof of Romney's car.
A constitutional convention is a pretty good idea, but it needs the support of people who respect "we" as much or more than we protect "me." The last thing we want is a long wrangle over whether a particular "right" is something this group should have but not those people.
