Speech delivered 4 July, 2011

How does it feel - to live in a place and time that is the envy of every civilization that has gone before? But wait! We have problems, we say. Wait! There is inequity, red tape, apathy, division, loss. Wait! We are a Nation at War - and we don’t always agree with each other. Yes, all this is true. However, I say in response, wait ~ and

Listen, you might hear the footsteps of those who would defy a government-ordered curfew to step outside their own front door in broad daylight and risk being shot.

Taste, the sweetness of quiet rebellion as dozens of women press the accelerator in a moving vehicle that represents human freedom much more than it does mobility.

Feel, the electricity of hundreds of thousands of people who mobilize to the streets - because they love their country and because they responded to a message on Facebook!

The sensations just described are only cursory vignettes of the powerful democracy movement sweeping the Middle East right now. The so-called “Arab Spring” that began in Tunisia earlier this year is an enormously significant, grass-roots demonstration of exactly what Jefferson articulated in the American Declaration of Independence when he penned:

“...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.”

From Cairo to Syria to Yemen and Libya, we are witnessing a great mobilization led by urban professionals and students who hope to replace authoritarian rule with a more democratic system. Last week, thousands of ordinary people gathered together in the former Soviet bloc country of Belarus and did something extraordinary. Threatened with brutal reprisal should they speak at all in public, and surrounded by a menacing security force, they found a way to convey their cry for human liberty without uttering a single word. They gathered en masse and marched through the streets - clapping their hands.

Today, in our world, in real-time, the common man is finally finding his voice. “Wait!” he cries, and what he means is, “Whatever they’re doing in America, we want that, too.” It is this voice we ought to thoughtfully consider, because it is OUR VOICE.

The world looked to the up-start American Colonies in 1776 initially as a bizarre and doomed curiosity. The whole idea of the American Enlightenment - which began as a liberal revolution - was literally just that - an IDEA. Oh, but what a completely ridiculous and astonishing idea it was! The Founding Fathers referred to their impossibly brilliant task as “The Great Experiment”. Why did they do that?

The simple answer is because it was. The concept was entirely new. America is the first nation in the history of the world whose inception was based on an IDEAL instead of blood-lines or tribal affiliation. It wasn’t easy. The patriots knew they were committing treason against THE supreme power on the face of the planet. They also knew they were dedicating their all to a totally un-tested theory. No one had ever heard of a country tied together in loyalty to a principle. They felt the dreadful weight of that painfully small window of opportunity to orchestrate the greatest coup of all time. Not only was the world watching, but this unbelievably gifted gathering of men (seemingly at random drawn together), pondered a great deal about future generations of Americans yet unborn who might look to them with gratitude or regret. Indeed, the Founding Fathers felt they would one day answer to God, and to the family of man for what they were about to do.

But Wait! - We Forget.

We forget distracted by our modern comforts of satellites and central air and "Dancing With The Stars" episodes, how totally alien it was in World History up to that point for anything to get done anywhere without a King, dictator or some other autocratic power calling all the shots and the accompanying ruling class supported by the labor of the masses.

In our current familiarity with Constitutional rights, we forget that our daily walk out in the open - buying, selling, traveling across state lines and saying just about anything we want to in total confidence - is in debt to what they did for us as they argued and negotiated and agonized about some really crazy, really radical new ideas for how people might organize themselves.

We forget, too, that our freedom to worship “according to the dictates of our own conscience” was also a principle vigorously defended in that hot, humid room in Philadelphia while the Second Continental Congress butted heads together week after week. Everything the Founders did, was with an eye to the future, and a prayer to Heaven, because the odds were miserably against them.

The first shots of the American revolution at Lexington and Concord truly were heard around the world. The “Great Experiment” achieved the unthinkable. We won. We won! Thirteen fractious, tiny, undisciplined little rag-tag colonies fiercely defended their right to the “Pursuit of Happiness”, and negotiated two of the most influential documents in History. The ideals of the Declaration of Independence are about as perfect as they can be. The ideals set forth in the United States Constitution are absolutely breath-taking for their scope and flexibility. The Constitution is the world’s longest-lasting, most imitated written political document. When it was all finally said and done, John Adams marveled that they had by the Grace of God somehow been able to “...form and establish the wisest and happiest government that human wisdom can conceive.” Time would tell how the national and world culture would gradually begin to honor those ideals so conceived.

223 years later The Constitution thankfully is still with us. Democracy is thriving in more countries than ever before. The standard of living has never been higher now that Globalization has brought the world family together with a casual click of a button - and still people leave somewhere else to come here. Amid many complaints and complicated growing-pains we hear at present, we may say - “Wait!”

We must not forget the brilliant foresight of our Constitutional framers who intentionally designed a document to survive a totally unknown future! We should acknowledge that they were undoubtedly moved upon by a Higher Power.

We must not forget that The Price of Liberty is Eternal Vigilance. We must never forget

that We Are Americans because we Choose to Be. We cannot afford to forget that our precious liberties are still a standard to the world. What they did here, and what we do here, shouts loud and clear to those who likewise long for human freedoms amplified in this, “The Great Experiment”. Neither can we forget this sobering responsibility: the American Flag is the most iconic symbol the world has ever known. It is instantly recognized anywhere. It may not always be welcome, but it’s red, white and blue is definitely understood to symbolize a FREE PEOPLE. THAT is a voice that will not be denied.

Listen, the voice of Freedom is a whisper, growing louder.

Taste, the beauty of this, the “American Dream” that we are all blessed to enjoy and evolve within.

Feel, the momentum of this amazing, tumultuous and Divinely-inspired time in which we are witnessing a surge of the common man, grasping at Liberty and a way of life which he first observed - in us.

This week’s TIME magazine features a picture of the Constitution getting acquainted with a shredder, with the cold caption, “Does it Still Matter?” One of the concluding sentences of this thoughtful essay is genius:

“The Constitution does not protect our spirit of liberty; our spirit of liberty protects the Constitution.”

May it always be so. God bless our families and our sacred honor, and God bless America!

References:

World Current Events, Spring-Summer 2011

The Spirit of America by William J. Bennett

This Nation Shall Endure by Ezra Taft Benson

Time Magazine, "One Document, Under Siege" by Richard Stengel 4 July 2011

The Protection of Liberty: A Response to Anthony Lewis' Review of a book by Justice Stephen Breyer

Anthony Lewis’ review of Stephen Breyer’s book Making Our Democracy Work: A Judge’s View is a thoughtful insight to the American judicial system, the public’s interaction with it and what sustains the court’s viability even when the ruling by the court is unpopular. Lewis endorses the work of his friend, Justice Breyer, as “a remarkable contribution to educating the public about our constitutional system and those whose job it is to guard its boundaries.” Lewis introduces his review by quoting an inspirational 1998 statement by Justice Aharon Barak of Israel. Barak recalled the lessons of the Holocaust reinforce the necessity of democracies honoring self-restraint of their political majorities in order to protect the minority populations. The process of keeping the majority power in-check requires a system of judges who can make impartial, objective decisions.

Breyer’s discussion of “democratic legitimacy” draws valuable attention to a peculiar and brilliant aspect of American democracy, which is the general public acceptance of Supreme Court decisions and an historical respect for the rule of law. The body of Lewis’ review includes historical examples of important judgments by the Court and the legacy of those decisions on the American perspective. Some of the rulings are acknowledged as timely and righteous and unquestionably loyal to the Constitution, such as school desegregation and the Guantanamo detainees suits. Others are exposed for their constitutional short-comings, as in Dred Scott v. Sandford, the Japanese relocation case of Korematsu v. United States, and the Bush v. Gore

election decision.

Lewis and Breyer ruminate cultural and sociological features of the evolving role of a court system that must adapt to meet the problems of each new generation while adhering to the intent or values of the Constitution. The conclusion of Lewis’ review highlights Breyer’s hope that the function of the Court would be more fully realized as the understanding of the people it serves increases. Breyer cautions that public acceptance is never a “sure thing,” and “can never be taken for granted.” However, Lewis offers his final thoughts with a negative interpretation of what public acceptance means today. He ponders how judges keep their faith in the system when “they are consistently outvoted by an intransigent ideological majority.” Lewis complains “ultraconservative” judges have an agenda counter to their purpose as interpreters and keepers of constitutional law. His final appeal for continued common dissent and criticism by members of the judicial system and the public at large imply a conspiratorial air to the current American political scene.

His abrupt and judgmental conclusion seems inconsistent with the earlier emphasis of “democratic legitimacy.” Additionally, Lewis assigns corruptive forces to the Court’s idealistic function as coming from one source; ultraconservative ideology. He does not define ultraconservatism, but instead implies its detrimental effects as a force that is changing both the American judicial system and the purpose of the American Constitution. Lewis on one hand applauds the equity of majority rule in the country, yet trashes it in the end by dismissing whatever a majority influence is only in as far as that majority is “ultraconservative.” Majority influence many times in American political history came from a liberal persuasion. However, the author ignores this fact and focuses instead on a specific court case from that time period.

Indeed, even when a conservative majority elects a president who may appoint conservative Justices to the Court, or when the Congress is filled with a conservative majority, it’s not reasonable to cry “unfair” as Lewis does in this article except a profound suppression of all other viewpoints actually exists. Unless he is prepared to first dismiss whatever public election was rigged - and prove it was - which elected so-called “ultraconservatives,” and secondly to show evidence a minority liberal influence either on the bench, or in Congress, or on Main Street, U. S. A. is completely impotent and silent, he is without basis for his ominous opinion about the preservation of constitutional law. Breyer’s work reviewed by Lewis sufficiently demonstrates how American society historically has ebbed and flowed interchangeably in a conservative or liberal or moderate direction. The vigor with which public sentiment or outcry effects lasting impact has never been a speedy process. Americans honor the judicial system because it is law and because the law offers them redress on some level even after a final decision is issued.

Curious - how Lewis can be willing to give due attention to the brilliant foresight of Constitutional framers who intentionally designed the document to survive a totally unknown future metamorphosis of the new country barely founded to successfully serve generations of Americans, yet narrow his vision of current rights and liberties to be under assault by one and only one ideological emphasis. For the first time in over a century, America could see three major political parties in the next presidential election contending equally at the polls instead of two. This is only one example to show how consistently the original intention of the framers is alive and well; Americans are flexing their right to an opinion in a free society. True, more people could and should be better informed about the Court’s function. More people should more involved in the PTA or at the local soup kitchen, too. The fact that there are not more citizens engaged in their communities and the political process is also a by-product of the greater good: citizens are free to choose. The ability to engage in open disagreement is an essential part of what grants liberty a healthy and secure place in society. Lewis can’t applaud the intrinsic chorus of different voices in the American public to consistently and by his own admission, remarkably cleave to the rule of law in spite of personal differences and sucker-punch the system as dangerously monotone! The entire article illustrates how the system breathes and thrives with the give and take, the checks and balances, even the growing pains of old standards expiring as new, more constitutionally pure ideals are gradually embraced by the American culture and then the world. Nevertheless, Lewis is unhappy that ideologies different from his own are given any latitude at all.

Lewis’ meticulous review and his complaint, as well as Breyer’s supremely competent expositions and advice, are welcome to enter the arena of vigorous public debate in America ably protected by the genius of a cherished document that appropriately begins, “We the People . . .”.