Constitution proclaims general principles in part because the original framers were divided on key political issues that have been interpreted by the U. In some countries, institutional practices have been accepted as "constitutional" even though they were never written into law, while in other countries, such as in Mexico, actual governance did not match the principles propounded in their constitutions.
Remarkably, according to the Illinois scholars, no systematic data exist on the content, provisions and structure of constitutions. This gap in research limits the comparative study of what types of constitutions make for more durable and efficient political institutions.
Even describing the contents of a constitution is difficult given the wide variations among countries and time periods. In a working paper, Elkins, Ginsburg and James Melton, an Illinois graduate student in political science, argued that constitutions are valuable by restricting the behavior of government. Another function of constitutions is to define a nation and its goals.
This function is particularly important in countries where citizens have strong ethnic or communal identities that compete with a national identity. Aided by a number of graduate students, the Illinois team has finished collecting data on current constitutions from countries. Two arguments offer the bare beginnings of an answer to this complicated question.
The first is that the desire to exploit labor was a central feature of most colonizing societies in the Americas, especially those that relied on the exportation of valuable commodities like sugar, tobacco, rice and much later cotton. Cheap labor in large quantities was the critical factor that made these commodities profitable, and planters did not care who provided it — the indigenous population, white indentured servants and eventually African slaves — so long as they were there to be exploited.
To say that this system of exploitation was morally corrupt requires one to identify when moral arguments against slavery began to appear. One also has to recognize that there were two sources of moral opposition to slavery, and they only emerged after One came from radical Protestant sects like the Quakers and Baptists, who came to perceive that the exploitation of slaves was inherently sinful.
But the great problem that Jefferson faced — and which many of his modern critics ignore — is that he could not imagine how black and white peoples could ever coexist as free citizens in one republic. There was, he argued in Query XIV of his Notes , Jefferson argued that there was already too much foul history dividing these peoples. And worse still, Jefferson hypothesized, in proto-racist terms, that the differences between the peoples would also doom this relationship.
He thought that African Americans should be freed — but colonized elsewhere. Yet we also have to recognize that he was trying to grapple, I think sincerely, with a real problem.
No historical account of the origins of American slavery would ever satisfy our moral conscience today, but as I have repeatedly tried to explain to my Stanford students, the task of thinking historically is not about making moral judgments about people in the past. Email: news-service stanford. Stanford, California Journalist Resources. Stanford News. Stanford Experts. Contact Us. In the election of , Jefferson tied in electoral votes with fellow Democratic-Republican Aaron Burr, thereby forcing the House of Representatives to decide the outcome of the election.
Alexander Hamilton disliked both men, but he supported Jefferson as the lesser of the two evils. During his two terms in office, Jefferson sought to stay true to his principles of a weak national government by cutting the federal budget and taxes, while still reducing the national debt.
They included the Louisiana Purchase of in which Jefferson, in a constitutionally questionable act, approved the purchase before Congress authorized payment; the Jefferson-supported Embargo Act of , which effectively prohibited all U. Critics charged that Jefferson exceeded the powers granted to him in the Constitution by engaging in these activities.
After he left the presidency, Jefferson returned to his Virginia home, Monticello, to pursue his numerous intellectual passions. On July 4, , fifty years after the signing of the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson died at Monticello. His former adversary and friend John Adams died the same day. Each was tied to his conception of freedom. The most lasting legacies of this complex man are the contributions he made to articulating American ideals and leading the nation during its early years.
This article was originally published in Carol Walker is an adjunct professor at George Mason University where she teaches about the First Amendment in courses on civil liberties, civil rights, and the Constitution.
She holds a Ph. Jefferson, Thomas. Notes on the State of Virginia, ed. Frank Shuffelton. New York: Penguin Press, Sheldon, Garrett Ward. The Political Philosophy of Thomas Jefferson. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, Is It Really Part of the Law? Post, David.
Carol Walker. Thomas Jefferson [electronic resource]. Other articles in Presidents. Want to support the Free Speech Center? Donate Now. The Spirit of America.
0コメント