On November 9, 1787, shortly after the new, proposed Constitution had been submitted to the People for their consideration, Washington wrote a letter to his nephew and heir, Bushrod Washington. In it he said (emphasis in the original):
The warmest friends to, and the best supporters of, the Constitution, do not contend that it is free from imperfections; but these were not to be avoided, and they are convinced if evils are likely to flow from them, that the remedy must come thereafter; because, in the present moment it is not to be obtained. And as there is a Constitutional door open for it, I think the people (for it is with them to judge) can, as they will have the aid of experience on their side, decide with as much propriety on the alterations and amendments which shall be found necessary, as ourselves; for I do not conceive that we are more inspired—have more wisdom—or possess more virtue than those who will come after us. The power under the Constitution will always be with the people. It is entrusted for certain defined purposes and for a certain limited period to representatives of their own choosing; and whenever it is exercised contrary to their interests, or not according to their wishes, their Servants can, and undoubtedly will be, recalled.
George Washington, in my view, was certainly one of the "warmest friends to, and the best supporters of, the Constitution." He told us that trouble lies ahead. He knew of imperfections and he knew that nothing could be done in late 1787 to correct them. We might be able to guess what he thought these imperfections were, but at the very least we should understand that we should be on our guard. The Constitution was a work in progress, not a finished marble monument.
Next Washington paid us a huge compliment and gave us a huge assignment. If we do not accept his assignment then his compliment is undeserved. He predicted that future generations, us included, would be wise enough to use the tools provided by the Constitution to make the improvements that their inspiration, wisdom, experience, and virtue dictate.
I must say that my father and mother, children of the Great Depression and veterans of World War II, exemplified Washington’s idea. To them, everything was subject to review. Economic disasters and wars against tyranny had shaped their understanding of the world. Inspired wisdom based on experience and virtue, not fake wisdom based on ideology and political or financial advantage, was to be followed in all things.
I think that Washington was telling us that the world and the Constitution belong to the living—the Constitution is a living document to be defined by those who live under its protection—to assert that the original Constitution is sacrosanct and to insist that the present is obliged to follow the thinking of the past is foolhardy and possibly villainous. We certainly should pay attention to what our predecessors had to say, but their ideas must be evaluated in light of our experience, our knowledge, and our circumstances.
Unfortunately, Washington’s ideas about how power would be managed by the Constitution were poorly implemented.
·The Power under the Constitution will always be with the People—Theoretically, the People are in power, but practically they are not. The Constitutional System does not provide a way for the People to tell their party or their government what to do. The People cannot say, "Stop that, and stop it now," or "Do this, and do it this way." Well, they can utter those words, and they do, especially during national elections. The People make their wishes known to their party leaders, but their leaders are at liberty to ignore them—and they do. It is essential that our government be redesigned to make our representatives subordinate to, employees of, the People. Not just on occasion, but every moment of every day.
·The People choose their own representatives—In principle, this point is also true. We do elect Representatives, but the choices are limited, and the election system is often not trustworthy. The Two-Party System limits the choices available to the People. The parties have managed to write our election laws so that it is very difficult for third parties to participate. Third-party candidates are regarded as spoilers, not as bona fide candidates for office. So election cycle after election cycle the People are presented with the same tired old candidates, or their clones. We need a better way of choosing our representatives so that the vigor and legitimacy of the government are frequently reestablished.
·The People delegate power to their chosen representatives—Once an official takes possession of this delegated power, he too often forgets his duty and operates as a free agent. He becomes a force unto himself, answerable to no one—except those who pay for his campaigns, and to whom he shows his appreciation. The people with money become our de facto representatives, but we don’t get to choose them. Parties support this system. They want to be reelected more than anything else.
·Power is to be used for certain defined purposes—This never was true. Under the Constitutional System, our representatives have certain powers that are limited, thank goodness, but they are free to decide how, when, and for what purpose they will exercise that power. The highest priority of any party’s legislative agenda is to maximize the chances of its reelection. This fact explains why the People are usually unhappy with the actions of the national government, but they are powerless to do anything about it. In the world of modern party politics, the desires of the People are less important than the incumbent party holding on to power. The party in power is reluctant to do anything that will anger voters. The party out of office is willing to promise anything to unseat the incumbents, but when they win everything changes.
·Power is to be used for a certain limited period—This one turned out not to be true. Our representatives quickly learned how to get reelected. They found out how to manipulate the voters to their advantage. Then when television came along reelection became easier. The power to manipulate through campaign advertisements was greater than before. Computers made it easier to gerrymander congressional district lines so many incumbents were safe from all opposition. These factors stretched the term of office to decades for many representatives. And the Framers designed a system in which the shortest term was two years. Even that is a long time for a "cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled" man to do his worst. It is too long.
·Power is to be used in the interests of, and according to, the wishes of, the People—Who decides what the People’s wishes and interests are? Apparently not the People. Instead the officials in Washington D.C. decide. Under the Constitutional System there is no defined process to convert a public wish into a public policy. The Two-Party System determines what is to become public policy, and they rarely consult the public in making their determinations. The People’s wishes and interests make up the Will of the People. The People want certain things done and those things are, by definition, in their interests. They may be wrong, they may act hastily, or they may not act when they should, but that is their right. They did not delegate that right to the national government. The national government is supposed to follow the People’s wishes and interests. It is to obey the Will of the People.
·Representatives are subject to recall by the People—The Framers did give us a couple of ways to recall our representatives. One is by voting them out of office, and the other is through impeachment. They haven’t worked very well. Members of Congress can usually stay in office as long as they want. Supreme Court Justices are in for life. The President is now restricted to two terms, but he has so much unchecked power that he can do immense damage, even in one term, before he can be stopped. Impeachment proceedings were brought against Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton. In one case the process was justified and in the other it was not. You decide which was which. Will your answer reveal your ideology? But if impeachment proceedings were justified for either Clinton or Nixon, then they were certainly justified in the case of George W. Bush and Dick Cheney. Yet these two men were permitted to serve out their full terms. So it is very clear that impeachment is not a workable way of recalling our representatives.
The failure of these basic, essential constitutional functions and the unacceptable national events that can be attributed to it, settles, once and for all, the question of whether our system is working. It clearly is not, and must be changed. Working within the system for any reason other than to change the system is doomed. We are running out of time.