Akhil Reed Amar: "America's Unwritten Constitution"
http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2012-09-13/akhil-reed-amar-americas-unwritten-constitution
This month marks the 225th anniversary of the U.S. Constitution. Considered the “Supreme Law of the Land,” this document established America’s national government and guaranteed certain basic rights for its citizens. In a new book, a leading scholar on constitutional law celebrates this venerated text but says we must go beyond it to fully understand it. He argues there are common values and practices absent from the Constitution that help govern today’s society. As part of our ongoing “Constitution Today” series, Diane talks with Akhil Reed Amar about the unwritten principles that guide the interpretation of our founding document.
Guests
Akhil Reed Amar
professor of law and political Science at Yale University, periodically a visiting professor at Harvard, Columbia and Pepperdine Law Schools and author of four books, including "America’s Constitution."
Read An Excerpt
Excerpted with permission from America’s Unwritten Constitution: The Precedents and Principles We Live By, by Akhil Reed Amar. Available from Basic Books, a member of The Perseus Books Group. Copyright © 2012.
Comments
Please familiarize yourself with our Code of Conduct and Terms of Use before posting your comments.
The Funding Fathers made sure in 1789 that the Owners would make and benefit from the rules laid down in the Constitution. Today it has been superceded by Corporatism and Global Trade Agreements (corporate protectionisms having little to do with the mythic elusive concept of free trade).
If you've ever been to chintzy Yale and seen how stingy it is you'll understand the Creationist archaeology this author has been smoking. This is a smokescreen for Global Oligarchy. Maybe the Constitution still applies in a snow globe, very charming indeed! Does Amar understand how New Haven has been a laboratory of sham democracy? Maybe not...
There no such thing as "America's Unwritten Constitution" there's only the written one. How about we just call it a wasted hour on liberal clap trap and leave it at that.
@truesob. Where did you study law, The University of Phoenix? When did this country's ignoramuses get the idea that their opinion is worth something?
EMF28 wrote: "this country"
There remains the unwritten rules that are forgotten regarding the Civil War. The deaths of 600,000 Americans should have created more closure between States rights,and Federal rights.I`ve never said a Pledge of Allegiance to my State. I`ve never saluted my State flag.For me,my State takes away more civil rights than the Feds could ever dream up.Our military fights wars to maintain our country`s way of life,and our country`s rights.I don`t see anybody volunteering to fight and protect States rights,at least not since the Civil War.
And we wonder why there are so many lawyers and it's still one of the top-earning professions in America? And we wonder why there are so many gridlocks not only in the Congress, but also in general public? And we wonder why even the existing laws aren't implemented consistently or consistently implemented in America? Well, it's all because our Constitution leaves so much to different or conflicting interpretations. So, let's not complain or blame why legal processes are so slow and costly in America. Unless we decide to amend the Constitution to make it more specific, this is how it will always be in the United(?) States of America.
+1
I no longer donate to NPR due to obvious liberal/progressive "slant"
Every year on July 4th we celebrate the signing of the Declaration of Independence.Yet,we do not use this document as a reference ,which was signed by our Founding Fathers,instead many use the Federalist Papers as a guide.These papers were political opinion pieces at best.
It`s there as clear as day,the intent and will of the Founders.Using the real words found in our true documents would deny some the ability to rule,CORPORATIONS ARE PEOPLE.
Will you donate again if it becomes more conservative/regressive?
Capitalism is not mentioned in our constitution. Please discuss this. When you listen to how often our Reps especially Republicans mention CAPITALISM the U.S. constitution was branded or sealed with the idea of capitalism
God is not mentioned in the Constitution either. This is a serious omission which our elected officials need to correct.
Other things left out of our Constitution-
Electoral college
Congressional districts
Executive orders
Executive privilege
So, then, you are against the Separation of the Church and State, I presume. Don't complain too much, however, as the U.S. is already a de facto "Judeo-Christian Nation." Public officials must swear in using the Bible, "In God We Trust" is printed on our currency. And any American who is not even remotely associated with Chrisitianity has a slim to no chance of becoming a President. Those are just few examples of how much religion influences supposedly secular America when it shouldn't, by the way.
It seems to me that the case of 'citizen's united' opens the possiblity that money might be used to prevent the freedom of speech of others (i.e. whichever corporation/super pac has the greatest amount money can drive up the cost of speech through modern means of communication, and thus limit the speech of others).
edwards wrote: "God is not mentioned in the Constitution either. This is a serious omission which our elected officials need to correct."
It is mentioned in the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence are inseparable, one compliments the other.
The genius of the Constitution and those who STARTED writing it is the recognition that it embodies the spirit of a free people, not a completely detailed delineation of minutiae. The document is intended to not be complete but provide the moving spirit of We The People. Hopefully it will never be considered complete - that would mean the nation had come to its end.
It is NOT scripture and was truly designed to prevent domination of any religious group, political clique, or proponents of any agenda, regardless how numerous or well-intentioned.
Compare the Constitution to an automobile owner's manual: there are many things about operation and maintenance of a car - lots of specifics. But the omission of instructions about turning the steering wheel to left or right does not prevent the owner from changing directions.
Matrixman. No coins read "In God We Trust", prior to the Confederacy. It didn`t appear on U.S. coinage until the 1880`s,when many Americans tired of Civil War reconstruction.Those right wing efforts included Plessy v Ferguson,separate but equal.The Pledge of Allegiance originally did NOT carry the words ONE NATION UNDER GOD,they were added in the 1950`s,during the McCarthyism era of fanaticism.
The Digital World around us is a compelling force that is becoming more pervasive. What can be done to protect citizens in a Digital World?
Has there been any interest in updating the 4th Amendment to include personal electronic data as personal property?
Why is our electronic data NOT given the same rights as the information printed on a piece of paper?
We The People, as in, We The WHITE People, to be more blunt and specific. And that's how the white majority would prefer still, today, despite the fuzzy, feely, official, American propagandas.
Could you comment on the unwritten right to privacy? Would this seem to extend to prohibit cameras set up by police to monitor public places such as are in place in Great Briton?
This is one of the most egregious attempt to diminish the GOP and their opinions. This guest is truly a progressive and he is given a half an hour of unopposed debate. We are less than 60 days from the most important election of our time. NPR will never get another dime from me. (I have donated thousands of dollars over the years.) I'm nauseated over this "yellow" journalism.
Mr. Amar, you fleetingly tell listeners that "your butler" and "your waiter" "cannot tell you what to say."
Specifically what kind of speech are you not affording your butler and waiter?
How many of us listening have butlers?
Have you yourself ever worked as a waiter?
Sir, can you yourself tell your butler (assuming you have one; a Yale affiliation would seem to increase ones chances, eh?) what to say? If so, is it on the basis of his being your employed subordinate, you yourself effectively being a private commercial tyranny? Do you feel that you yourself can say anything abrasive and abusive to your employee subordinate and that, if he takes offense, you can fire him for insubordination and just cause?
In a restaurant, can you say anything abusive you wish to a waiter? Do you expect him to silently and smilingly take it on the chin from your for fear of losing his job?
Employees can be fired and no reason have to be given, the employee's opinions, political or otherwise, being sufficient reason in the eyes of the commercial tyrant.
Why is when those were added so important and what difference does it make to the fact that those are examples of stark contradictions to the idea of Separation of Church and State or, to be more general, taking religion out of our public lives? They don't!
Like any Consttutional scholar who talks or writes about our nebulous Constitution, Professor Amar was trying to climb a slippery slope, as I listened, apparently wiggling and contradicting while doing so.
EXCELLENT show! I've some questions on "unwritten" laws!
1. Was 17th amendment a large part of reason
Congress/gridlock today has less than 10% approval rating?
2. Is Preamble part of "Unwritten" (not explicit "law" per se)?
3. Isn't Hippocratic "Oath" in direct conflict with Roe vs Wade?
"Oath" for 2300 years is against abortion as basic right
and promises no abortion by doctors or medical assistants!
4. if 19th amendment is "women's equality", isn't it for gays?
5. "Mr Smith goes to D.C." was hugely "pro" fillurbuster.
Would you sayt efficiency is to abandon "Roberts Rules"?
6. "Ignorance of law is no excuse", same apply to "unwritten"?
why not write it down then? Amend explicitly for all of US.
7. Intellectually dishonest self-rightious indignation folks
suggest OK for idiotic filmmaker but not Romney?
Shouldn't all campaigning for highest office, acknowledge
they lack facts of "Incumbant" but NOT shut-up? say,
Iran is attacked by Israel..what would Romney do?
What if Obama is about to be impeached? Say nothing?
May God bless America & lovers/defenders of free speech!
8. Should folks have to "shut up" if they see "Secret" service?
9. Should civil rights folks object to Obama new policy
where he can bomb & obliterate US Citizens
without due process, even on US soil as Holder says?
10. Can Obama selectively decide not to enforce some laws
with which he disagrees? (Illegal immigrants,
black panthers blocking voting site, defense of marriage)
11. Can "Treaty of Vienna" override the constitution
if UN policy signed to prohibit sale of handguns as today
which will become "law of USA land" if Obama signs
and we can't get Reid/Senate to raise for consideration?
I thought it very strange that condemnation on Romney speaking out was tightly coupled with support on idiotic filmmaker's right to speak out...which would we rather hear from given we have 60 days to make up our minds who will run this country next 4 years? Very strange to me too.
I was Democrat for 54 years but being a Catholic I was struggling in first place voting to reinstate Obama when I expect he will be impeached anyway in first year or so when Holder's cover-up get's fully vetted. I think mess in middle-east is part Obama's fault, partly for letting new Egypt leader insist on us releasing sheik involved in 9-11 attack and not having "WTF" retort Obama could use in his re-ellection bid!
HonestAbe wrote:
"The genius of the Constitution and those who STARTED writing it is the recognition that it embodies the spirit of a free people, not a completely detailed delineation of minutiae. The document is intended to not be complete but provide the moving spirit of We The People."
Ah the call to arms for the activist judiciary! The "moving spirit of We The People" is a euphemism for a "living" Constitution. And it is balderdash.
Read Article 1, Section 8. Then ask yourself, "why did the Founders lay in so many specifics"? Our Federal Republic was established to place a little bit of power in many hands - not a lot of power in a few hands, which is where we stand today; a small central government loosely tying together strong state and local governments where power is more closely vested in the people. The Federal Income Tax, the Federal Reserve, fly in the face of what the Founders wanted. We have eschewed a Federal Republic for a Unitary Republic. Largely, the blame also lies in the misinterpretation of the commerce clause as a "get out of jail free" card for Congress to abuse what sould have been its limited power, but also at the feet of FDR and LBJ. It is also the case that every "social program" ever adopted by the FG is unconstitutional. There is no Constitutional provision for the FG to give money to ANY individual, but only to promote the General Welfare.
Today, we have a system of government that the Founders would not only not recognize, but scoff at once they did. It is the product of the liberal progressivism of the 20th century and it's a shame.
No!
We should expect a balanced approach on difficult topics. That allows for a "a more perfect union". Seeing all sides of a issue helps us to have a better (and perhaps a different) understanding.
The callers observation that non-American security was also killed is not a small insignificant piece of information to emphasis for an increasingly under-educated American public. Feelings in America are more and more taken as "truth." Knowing that non-Americans were also killed "expands" the possibility that Americans at least will hesitate and jump to take sides and join a mass think making this into "politics" as the Republicans are bent on doing. What distinguished America was it's ability to weigh in with complex thinking. I fear this is disappearing as one observes how our political parties do not work together for the benefit of the whole. The lack of public critical thinking that our educational system was noted for is scary.
This is not the first time Pastor Jones has refused to relinquish his role as "next famous person." Do you not think he qualifies as a terrorist, putting us all in danger? He has had his free speech. Isn't the next step of free speech "responsibility" for what affect it has? WHEN did we equate free speech with not taking responsibility for WHAT we say?