Wednesday, March 10, 2004

Some lessons on minority rights

I’ve been reading a great deal about the Constitutional Convention of 1787 over the past few months. The entire process, and particularly the personalities involved, make for magnificent theater, and I’m left with a sense of wonder and awe at their ability to put aside cherished personal themes for the good of the nation. The document they produced has withstood the test of time and practicality, allowing for stable, flexible governance amidst the worst of economic times, and even civil war.

A recurring theme among the delegates was the fear of the abuse of power. All the delegates were educated men, many conversant in the ancient languages of Latin and Greek, and thoroughly familiar with Cicero, the Roman Republic, and the Greek democracies.

Recognizing the foibles of man and his historical bent on collecting power and using it against the governed, they decided a separation of those powers to be most advantageous. Thus we have our Senate, House of Representatives, federal court system, and executive branch, all supposedly co-equal, but the House as direct representatives of the people, a little more equal.

They believed in the people, but were wary of the passions of the people. The Senate was a direct result of this wariness, and was not originally chosen directly by the voters.

Madison wrote in Federalist 62: “The necessity of a senate is not less indicated by the propensity of all single and numerous assemblies, to yield to the impulse of sudden and violent passions....”

The Senate was formulated as a shock absorber against the passions of the people. Likewise the founders made it very difficult to change the U.S. Constitution. Article V calls for two-thirds of both houses, or two-thirds of all state legislatures to even propose amendments, which then must be ratified by three-fourths of the states.

The 57 men at the Convention were concerned about power, about tyranny, and about changes to the protections they had written for posterity. They didn’t say future governments couldn’t change, nor tyrannize a minority. They just wanted to make such change slow, and difficult.

Which brings me to the passionate editorials of The Citizen, demanding an immediate vote on a change to the state constitution.

The editor points out the state constitution has been changed recently for pure fluff, and I would agree. The amendment the editor proposes we must address here and now is not pure fluff, but affects a minority of our citizens profoundly, and may be a reaction to a non-action.

Georgia statutes already declare marriage as existing between a man and a woman. Massachusetts law does not trump Georgia law in Georgia. If the Supreme Court of the United States declares state statutes defining marriage to be unconstitutional, it will supersede even the Georgia Constitution. Such a thing has not yet happened, and is unlikely given the current composition of the court.

I applaud the black legislators who voted against the amendment, although I believe most of them are against same-sex marriage, as are their constituents. However, looking across the aisle, I’ll bet many got that tickle on the back of their necks, got the whiff of oppression which I’m sure they can recognize at even low levels, and voted to delay the headlong rush.

In the words of Bob Marley: “When you analyze the stench, to me it makes a lot of sense.” So I think Cal “Henny Penny” Beverly ought to stop hyperventilating, disperse the lynch mob, call back the B-52s and rent a copy of “The Oxbow Incident.”

Invasion is best addressed by quick, decisive action. Democratic republican government, through clarity and reason, moves far more slowly and avoids the passion that produces long-term illness.

Timothy J. Parker

Peachtree City, Ga.