[Salon] Preparing For America’s 250th Anniversary as Democracy Seems In Trouble - Guest Post by Allan Brownfeld

Preparing For America’s 250th Anniversary As Democracy Seems In Trouble By Allan C. Brownfeld ————————————————————————————————————————— Almost two and a half centuries ago, on July 4, 1776, the United States of America declared its independence. Preparations are now under way to celebrate the 250th anniversary of the signing of the Declaration of Independence on July 4, 2026, what will be called a Semiquincentennial celebration. Written in 1787 and in operation since 1789, the U.S. Constitution is the world’s longest surviving written charter of government. Sean Wilentz, professor of American history at Princeton, said that when this form of government emerged in the United States, the monarchists and aristocrats of the world hated it. “It was radical and revolutionary,” he said. “It was the opposite of the formal rule of the rich and well-born.” The U.S. is the longest standing democracy in the world. Its Constitution came into effect in 1789, and famously begins with “We the people,” affirming that government must serve its citizens. Ours is the only country in the world with continuous democracy for nearly 250 years. A 33-member Commission has been established to plan a celebration that would unite the country. One Commission member, Sen. Alex Padilla (D-CA), says, “I am envisioning countless celebrations as diverse as the country we live in.” He says that even though America was “far from perfect” at the beginning—-with slavery, mistreatment of native Americans, second-class citizenship for women—-“the Founding Fathers would be very pleased with our country because they fashioned principles and constitutional mechanisms to eventually guarantee equal rights to all.” The Founders knew that changes would be necessary and they established the amending process to make this possible. Over the years, we have steadily moved to alter our society and to expand the freedom of all its citizens. Yet, even at the beginning many feared that a free and democratic society could not survive into the future. Indeed, from the beginning of history, philosophers predicted the democracy would slowly give way to tyranny. Plato, Aristotle, and more recently De Tocqueville, Lord Bryce and Macaulay predicted that people would give away their freedom voluntarily for what they perceived as greater security. Thomas Babbington Macaulay, writing in 1857, lamented, “I have long been convinced that institutions purely democratic must, sooner or later, destroy liberty or civilization or both.” Looking to America, Macaulay declared that, “Either some Caesar or Napolean will seize the reigns of government with a strong hand, or your republic will be as fearfully plundered and laid waste by barbarians…as the Roman Empire was…with this difference—-that your Huns and Vandals will have been engendered within your own country by your institutions.” The Founders feared excessive government, particularly a powerful chief executive. The Constitution clearly limited and divided government power with a system of checks and balances. Over time, however, these have eroded, and government power has steadily grown. Perceptive early leaders such asJohn Calhoun predicted that government power would grow and that those in power would always advocate a “broad” use of power, and those out of power would always argue for a “narrow” use of power, and that no one would ever turn back government authority which has once been assumed. Calhoun was all too prophetic when he wrote the following in “A Disquisition on Government”: “A written Constitution certainly has many and considerable advantages, but it is a great mistake to suppose that the mere insertion of provisions to restrict and limit the powers of government, without investing those for whose protection they are inserted with the means of enforcing their observance, will be sufficient to prevent the major and dominant party from abusing its powers. Being the party in possession of government, they will…be in favor of the powers granted by the Constitution and opposed to the restrictions intended to limit them. As the major and dominant parties, they will have no need of these restrictions for their protection…The minor or weaker party, on the contrary, would take the opposite direction and regard them as essential to their protection against the dominant party….But where there are no means by which they could compel the major party to observe the restrictions, the only resort left them would be a strict construction of the Constitution…To this the major party would oppose a liberal construction…one which would give to the words of the grant the broadest meaning of which they were susceptible.” Calhoun concludes: “It would then be construction against construction—the one to contract and the other to enlarge the powers of the government to the utmost. But of what possible avail could the strict construction of the minor party be, against the liberal interpretation of the major, when the one and the other be deprived of all means of enforcing its construction? In a contest so unequal, the result would not be doubtful. The party in favor of the restrictions would be overpowered…The end of the contest would be the subversion of the Constitution…the restrictions would ultimately be annulled and the government be converted into one of unlimited powers.” Today, our democracy is transforming itself into something many of us find it difficult to recognize. The Constitution says that Congress shall declare war. The last time it did so was after Pearl Harbor. Since then, we have gone to war in Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq and a host of other places—without a Congressional declaration. The Constitution has been ignored. After the last election, the U.S.Capitol was violently invaded by those who sought to overturn the results of a free and fair election. Now, the Supreme Court tells us that presidents are, somehow, largely immune from the law, something no one ever suggested before. The American idea that no man is above the law seems no longer to be the case. Those on the Supreme Court who call themselves “Originalists”——seeking to apply the original intent of the authors—-seem not aware of how they have diverged from what the Framers had in mind concerning the chief executive. Alexander Hamilton wrote in Federalist 69 that unlike “the King of Great Britain,” the chief executive of the United States would be “liable to prosecution and punishment in the ordinary course of law.” And in Federalist 77, named “Subsequent Prosecution in the Common Course of Law,” it is declared that in addition to impeachment, prosecution is a check “on the abuse of executive authority.” Assessing the expansion of executive authority, Walter Olsen of the libertarian Cato Institute, declares that, “A majority of the Supreme Court has laid down an astonishingly broad view of presidential immunity from criminal prosecution over official action, even those taken for heinous motives and with no show of justification…nowhere in the Constitution is there any mention of executive immunity…this is not what the Framers wanted. It’s not what we should want either.” As we prepare for our 250th anniversary, we should recognize the very real threats which confront our society at the present time. By recognizing and confronting them, we will insure that one hundred years from now, our descendants will be busy planning for another such celebration.