Alan Keyes and "Declarationism"

[qwnu]

All those Replublicans who have been waiting for your party's savior can finally rejoice; Alan Keyes has entered the race for the presidency!

But seriously folks, I checked out his website and thought this was interesting:

[ QUOTE ]

...to ensure true understanding of the intent of the Founders: he believes that interpreting the Constitution accurately requires the additional perspective of the Declaration of Independence — the "self-evident" truths of which the Constitution was intended to frame into law.

SINCE THE original intent of the Constitution was to ensure through law what the Declaration expressed in principle, Dr. Keyes argues, the Declaration should be held up as the ultimate interpretive framework for studying and implementing our revered Constitution.

LEAVE OUT the Declaration, as many do, and the Constitution becomes subject to the personal whims of revisionist judges, relativist intellectuals, cultural engineers, and others who reject the very premises of our nation's founding.


[/ QUOTE ]

I've never really heard of this doctrine of "declarationism" before, at least not in this formal construction. It seems pretty clearly an attempt to undermine the separation of church and state, since the Constitution omits any mention of God in government, while the Declaration refers to the "Creator" as the source of our inalienable rights.

I was always taught that while the Declaration and other document from the era can provide interesting and enlightening context, it is the Constitution, and the Constitution only, which provides the formal basis for our system of laws and governments.

Incidentally, while I do consider myself to be a "relativist intellectual", I don't agree that this means I reject "the very premises of our nation's founding." [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[Copernicus]

I think the key is that he is saying it is the ultimate interpretive framework. Where there is conflict between the Constituiton and the DoI, there is no room for interpretation that takes the DoI position. However, where there is a Constitutional issue that is open to interpretation and there is no clear conflict with the DoI, then the DoI gives some "legislative history" to aid in that interpretation, just as committee reports aid in the interpretation of a new law when the ultimate drafting of the law doesnt clearly contradict a position taken in debating the law.

[Kaj]

It's all rather moot anyway. We supposedly have a govt of the people, by the people, for the people. The people in 1776 are dead. Whatever their intentions were for how govt should be run is not relevant anymore outside of what is law. Our law is based on the Constitution -- interpretations are made by people today in 2007 with respect to 2007 society, not people in 1776 based on 1776 society. Doesn't mean I wouldn't prefer if we interpreted based on the mindsets of 1776 on many issues. But because I'd prefer it doesn't make it right. And anyway, even the DoI is flawed. Even the man who authored it still owned slaves. Just gives you some perspective in that 1776 values weren't perfect.

[andyfox]

"SINCE THE original intent of the Constitution was to ensure through law what the Declaration expressed in principle"

Keyes does not know what the original intent of the Constitution was; nobody does. The guys who framed it were at each other's throats inside of ten years because they themselves disagreed about what was intended.

[John Kilduff]

[ QUOTE ]
"SINCE THE original intent of the Constitution was to ensure through law what the Declaration expressed in principle"

Keyes does not know what the original intent of the Constitution was; nobody does. The guys who framed it were at each other's throats inside of ten years because they themselves disagreed about what was intended.

[/ QUOTE ]

To some degree or regarding some parts of the Constitution: I believe you are correct. The intent of other parts of the Constitution may be easily discerned.

In my opinion we don't need a SCOTUS to tell us what the document means. The average well-read U.S. citizen's interpretation is just fine because the document was written to be read and understood by the people; it was not designed with the intention that a highly specialized legal team would be required to decipher and interpret it for everyone else. The Founders weren't trying to write in secret code.

[andyfox]

The framers didn't have a secretary recording their deliberations. They proceedings were conducted in secret. The "people" were the rabble, to be distrusted. By 1800, perhaps only ten percent of the American popoulation was enfranchised.

The Constitution was kept deliberately vague in sections where the framers couldn't agree and to allow for future generations to interpret. In many cases, they were indeed writing in secret code.

[qwnu]

[ QUOTE ]
I think the key is that he is saying it is the ultimate interpretive framework. Where there is conflict between the Constituiton and the DoI, there is no room for interpretation that takes the DoI position. However, where there is a Constitutional issue that is open to interpretation and there is no clear conflict with the DoI, then the DoI gives some "legislative history" to aid in that interpretation, just as committee reports aid in the interpretation of a new law when the ultimate drafting of the law doesnt clearly contradict a position taken in debating the law.

[/ QUOTE ]
Even stipulating that there is a need for an official interpretive framework, why does the DoI automatically get to be that document? It seems self-serving in Keyes's case since it contains the magic "Creator" language he needs to justify his [radical, extremist] views.

Alternative choices might be The Federalist, the private letters of Hamilton and/or Madison, or even the Bible. Something tells me Keyes would be even happier if he could get away with:
[ QUOTE ]
SINCE THE original intent of the Constitution was to ensure through law what the Bible expressed in principle, the Bible should be held up as the ultimate interpretive framework for studying and implementing our revered Constitution.

[/ QUOTE ]

[John Kilduff]

[ QUOTE ]
The framers didn't have a secretary recording their deliberations. They proceedings were conducted in secret. The "people" were the rabble, to be distrusted. By 1800, perhaps only ten percent of the American popoulation was enfranchised.

The Constitution was kept deliberately vague in sections where the framers couldn't agree and to allow for future generations to interpret. In many cases, they were indeed writing in secret code.

[/ QUOTE ]

Allowing room for future interpretation on some points is not the same as writing with intent to obscure.

The fact that some portions were deliberately left with some room for interpretation is a different issue, and served a different purpose.

The Founders didn't deliberately overcomplicate the document with legalese and they didn't foresee or ask for a future SCOTUS to rule on its meaning. Parts of the document that were left vague were not left vague with the intended purpose being that an A-Team of judges would be required for its interpretation.

[qwnu]

[ QUOTE ]
In my opinion we don't need a SCOTUS to tell us what the document means. The average well-read U.S. citizen's interpretation is just fine...

[/ QUOTE ]
What happens when two well-read U.S. citizens (e.g., me and Alan Keyes) disagree on what the document means?

Also, how well-read do you have to be to have an opinion? [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[bdk3clash]

[ QUOTE ]
Also, how well-read do you have to be to have an opinion? [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]
Not very.