About the Authors

Donald Boudreaux is professor of economics at George Mason University, a former FEE president, and the author of Globalization. He is the winner of the 2009 Thomas Szasz Award for Outstanding Contributions to the Cause of Civil Liberties (general category). ... See All Posts by This Author

Donald J. Boudreaux

What Is the American Constitution?

Ideas, Not Words, Are Its Principal Ingredient

This is the essential element of all government: force, used with general consent.
Rose Wilder Lane, The Discovery of Freedom

What is the American constitution? The obvious answer is that it s the document written in 1787, amended 27 times since, and the original of which is housed in the National Archives. Judges, politicians, the news media—indeed, all Americans—talk of that 6,000+ word document as being the constitution.

This talk is mistaken. The constitution is neither a document nor the collection of words in a document. Instead, the constitution is the dominant ideology within us an ideology that determines what we permit each other to do, as well as what we permit government to do. No words on parchment, regardless of the pedigree of that parchment or of the men and women who composed those words, will ever override the prevailing belief system of the people who form a polity.

We have at hand ready proof that the constitution is ideology rather than words in a document. Read the document popularly called “the Constitution” and ask if it accurately describes the law of the land. Your answer will almost certainly be no. That document clearly gives to the national government only very limited powers for example, to coin money, to operate post offices, and to supply national-defense services. Today, however, Washington knows almost no restraints on how deeply its regulatory arms reach into the lives of American citizens. No species of economic regulation is off-limits to the national government. Likewise, Washington routinely and without a whiff of apology exercises governmental powers clearly intended by the framers of the Constitutional document to be reserved to each state.

It’s true that some provisions in the Constitutional document are respected. If Congress today passed a statute outlawing publication of Cosmopolitan magazine, a sufficiently large number of Americans would resist this attempt by government to control what is printed. But the fact that some parts of the Constitutional document have some teeth doesn’t mean that the document itself is “the law of the land.”

Those instances in which the Constitutional document has teeth (such as the First Amendment’s prohibition of government interference with the press) are those instances in which the prevailing ideology of the American people happens to correspond with what’s written in the Constitutional document. But in those many instances when the prevailing ideology runs counter to the text of the Constitutional document, the document is toothless.

Again, the American Constitution is nothing more or less than Americans’ prevailing ideology. And this ideology—as any ideology comes from ideas about what is proper and improper, acceptable and unacceptable, desirable and undesirable, practical and impractical, noble and ignoble.

Most Americans today have the idea that Congress is perfectly justified in delegating its legislative authority to federal agencies. Therefore, despite the complete lack of any language in the Constitutional document authorizing independent agencies, Washington is planted thick with federal agencies exercising legislative powers. No one today suggests that these agencies are unconstitutional.

Most Americans today have the idea that the national government is authorized to dictate the details—from gasoline mileage to the number of airbags per vehicle of how automobiles are to be manufactured. Despite the Constitutional document very clearly not giving authority over such matters to Washington, the national government exercises such authority and almost no one today regards this exercise of authority as unconstitutional.

Most Americans today accept the idea that government should tell people what they can or cannot ingest. Most Americans accept the idea that minimum-wage legislation is desirable. Most Americans accept the idea that protecting property rights is less noble than protecting plant and animal species.

Thousands more such examples can be listed.

In the past, when I got furious at the government for doing things clearly prohibited by the Constitutional document, I would declare “That’s unconstitutional!”

I was wrong. Those innumerable government actions that are at odds with the Constitutional document as well as with the principles of a free society are in fact constitutional. These actions are constitutional because the constitution is the actual legal framework of our society—and the actual legal framework in America today grants to government extraordinarily vast powers for intruding into the lives of peaceful people.

Again, the reason is that most Americans today have the idea that it is desirable, or at least not inappropriate, for government to exercise an authority immensely larger than was contemplated by Americans of the founding generation. If, instead, today’s Americans had the idea that government’s only legitimate function was to keep the peace, there could be no doubt that politicians who attempted to enforce, say, the Americans With Disabilities Act would get nowhere. It’s not so much that these politicians would get voted from office; instead, ordinary people would simply refuse to comply with the statute.

If you doubt this, ask what would happen if Congress enacted legislation banning interstate travel by Americans. Can you imagine Americans today respecting such an odious statute? Of course not, despite the fact that the Constitutional document does not explicitly prevent Congress from passing such legislation. To avoid enforcement of this statute we wouldn’t have to wait to throw from office the bums who enacted it. Because of the prevailing American ideology, which is hostile to such legislation, this statute would be a nullity from the moment the President signed it.

It follows that ideas matter enormously. Ideas, not words, are the principal ingredient of the American constitution. If ideas change, so does the constitution. And the only way really to change the constitution is to change the ideas accepted by the great swath of citizens.

We at FEE are in the business of constitutional amendment–changing the ideas that people have about freedom, about property, about politics, and about government. If we succeed in restoring the idea that free people are more prosperous, peaceful, and culturally vigorous than those who rely on government, we will have done nothing less than to amend the American constitution in a way that secures liberty. We will also have re-created the Constitution that James Madison and other founding-era Americans intended.

Liberty cannot be secured by asking its foe–the state–for more respect. Liberty cannot be secured at ballot boxes or in courtrooms. Liberty must reside in the hearts of people if it is to reign. And the only way that liberty can find its way into the hearts of people is through the promulgation and circulation of the ideas of liberty. In these ideas lies liberty’s only hope.

Donald J. Boudreaux
President

There Are 11 Responses So Far. »

  1. One would hope this is a moderated forum for there are mutant trolls leaving leaving their droppings behind. Their garbage should be deleted as it adds nothing of value (to anyone).

    Donald,
    Thanks for this article and its insights. Yes, liberty is a state of mind.
    If the Constitution were to be amended today, I, for one, would like to see an amendment to the effect that “the right of the people to ignore the State, shall not be infringed.”
    I’m presently reading “THE POLITICS OF OBEDIENCE: THE DISCOURSE OF VOLUNTARY SERVITUDE”, by ÉTIENNE DE LA BOÉTIE – available from the Mises Institute for a mere 7(+ shipping) FEDERAL RESERVE NOTE(s). It’s precisely the premise of La Boétie’s work that subservience is a state of the mind because always and everywhere the (so-called) leadership is the minority.
    Keep up the (intellectual) fight. It’s also a premise of La Boétie that it’s *never* necessary to resort to violence to effect the change that’s needed. In it’s educational outreach, F.E.E. is following the proper course, even through it may seem you’re beating your heads against a concrete block wall at times.

  2. what is the constitution ??? PLEASE

  3. DO YOU KNOW DIMITRI BALYN

  4. i can has cheezburger?

  5. i love that web site! http://www.icanhascheezburger.com

  6. Donald,

    Thanks for a clear exposé. A corollary is that our amendment by popular fiat weakens the strength of the written word substantially, which in turn threatens further weakness. We all believe the written constitution to be the law of the land while blithely ignoring it. It is, after all, our allegiance that empowers the written law. We must understand that our personal honor and respect for one another is our only hope of continued peace and prosperity. But, alas, our prosperity seems to breed selfishness, arrogance and enmity toward duty.

    It is the struggle for men’s minds that matters most.

  7. An insightful article, though it encouraged me and discouraged me at the same time. I currently teach a high school class on “the Constitution”…I have always stressed the history of the Constitution as being as important as the document itself…We discuss often the ideas of liberty and freedom, and constitutional and unconstitutional. (Now I’ll have to rethink my use of those latter words.)

    Within my sphere of influence, I will continue to work on your idea that: “Liberty must reside in the hearts of people if it is to reign.” Thank you again for a great article and a great magazine. “Ideas on Liberty” has been a must-read at my house for many, many years.

  8. Nice! Thanks! As Mises used to say, even a dictator has to take the temperature of the majority once in a while. In addition to what Dr. Boudreaux writes, I have come to the conclusion that the Constitution was the red-haired step child for even its own fathers. It seems that everyone immediately set up to undermine the document before the ink had dried. Some tried to get around the restrictions on the state while others figured out how to undermine the state’s power. Unfortunately, those who wanted more power for the state than allowed in the Constitution have always won.

  9. PS, this is a warning for anarchists. No document can restrain the will of the majority. If you want anarchism, you must convince the majority. But if the majority are convinced, then limited government will work as well. The form of the state doesn’t matter; the ideology of the majority is all that counts.

  10. Thank u Donald, your explanation as to ideology behind constitution is correct and it applies to all retional costitution of the world However,changing idaes of the people should looked from the angle of social wealfare,to much importance individual ideology may not holds good in modern society.Now we were thinking about Rule of Justice as We know that rule of justice is bettter then rule of law. Accordingly individual ideology or individual aspiration should be put in second place as social wefare occupied first place.

  11. Thank u Donald, your explanation as to ideology behind constitution is correct and it applies to all rational costitution of the world However,changing idaes of the people should looked from the angle of social wealfare,to much importance individual ideology may not holds good in modern society.Now we were thinking about Rule of Justice as We know that rule of justice is bettter then rule of law. Accordingly individual ideology or individual aspiration should be put in second place as social wefare occupied first place.

Post a Response

  • © Copyright 2011 Freeman - Ideas on Liberty. All rights reserved.

    63 queries. 1.682 seconds