Some Say the Constitution Has Failed. This Thanksgiving, Here's Why It Hasn't.
Most countries emerged from a shared language, lineage, or ancient heritage. The United States built a state first and then had to discover what it meant to be a nation.
Thanksgiving invites us to pause and consider the gifts we often overlook. This year, at a moment of rising political unease and ideological confusion, I am especially grateful for one extraordinary inheritance: a nation and its creed brought into being by the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution.
Why, in addition to family, friends, and a feast, is this on my mind today? In certain circles, especially among "post-liberal" thinkers on the right, it's now fashionable to claim that the Constitution has failed. Some argue that the country's founding was overly individualistic or insufficiently moral, that our constitutional structure prevents the pursuit of a unified national purpose, or that what we need instead is a more powerful state headed by a muscular executive and a more cohesive cultural or religious identity enforced from above.
These arguments aren't abstract. Some theorists openly celebrate unchecked executive power or regimes that derive legitimacy from hierarchy rather than the people's consent. Increasingly, they dismiss the Founding not as a glorious achievement but as an obstacle to national renewal through centralized authority.
This agenda ignores the extraordinary success of the American constitutional experiment and the astonishing diversity it has held together for nearly two and a half centuries. As famed historian Gordon Wood recently reminded us in The Wall Street Journal, America has always been different. Most countries emerged from a shared language, lineage, or ancient heritage. The United States did the opposite: It built a state first and then had to discover what it meant to be a nation.
From the beginning, America was a mixture of peoples. John Adams wrote that it resembled "several distinct nations almost" and pondered whether such a collection could truly cohere. Leaders marveled as the first census revealed an array of languages, religions, and origins. Yet over time, Americans did form a common identity—not through blood or inherited culture but through shared ideals. National unity solidified after these ideals were articulated in the Declaration and given lasting institutional form in the Constitution.
This is what makes the United States what Wood calls a "creedal nation." To be an American is not to descend from a particular people but to embrace a set of principles: liberty, equality (of opportunity), self-government, and the rule of law. The Constitution brilliantly translated those principles into a durable structure, allowing people who differ in background and belief to live together as citizens. It allows a couple who arrived from Romania in 1980, or from Haiti or Mexico decades later, to stand on equal civic footing with families whose ancestors were here at the founding. That's among our greatest blessings.
The Constitution has been amended and improved over the decades, often through great struggle. The post–Civil War Reconstruction Amendments—especially the Fourteenth—did not break from the Founding but fulfilled it. They made national citizenship a reality and gave legal force to the moral principle of equality, tying every American to the generation of 1776. In that process, the Constitution was strengthened, not repudiated.
This reality helps explain why post-liberal critiques faulting the Constitution for failing to impose a single moral or cultural vision miss the mark. Constitutional limits exist because the Founders feared unchecked power, whether exercised by a ruler or by majorities which have at times been egregiously wrong. The Constitution protects a pluralistic society from the dangers of centralized authority and ideological certitude. In a nation as varied as ours, those protections are not optional.
We live in a time when self-appointed saviors on all sides claim to possess the single solution to our problems. The Constitution responds with humility. It demands persuasion, not imposition. It insists on limits. It expects disagreements. It trusts that freedom, not enforced consensus, is the proper foundation for a lasting political community.
The Constitution doesn't guarantee national unity. It guarantees something better: a system that channels conflict without destroying liberty. As Wood notes, democracy can be volatile. The Founders knew that well. Their answer is a framework that moderates collective impulses while preserving the rights of individuals and minorities.
This framework has steadied the nation before. It carried us through the early years, and through waves of immigration and rising diversity. It carried us through civil war, economic crises, and global conflict. And if we remember what we have, it can carry us through our present troubles.
This Thanksgiving, I'm grateful for the institutions that have preserved our liberty even when they frustrate us. In a country bound not by ancestry but by shared principles, the Constitution is more than a governing document. It is the mechanism through which a diverse people becomes a nation. That's a gift worth defending and giving thanks for.
COPYRIGHT 2025 CREATORS.COM
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please to post comments
“among "post-liberal" thinkers on the right, it's now fashionable to claim that the Constitution has failed.”
I’m pretty sure this is not new among the right. William F Buckley comes to mind, if I’m not mistaken.
For the constitution to work, we had to get rid of its enemies. Which are primarily democrats.
You are mistaken.
You’re right, I was thinking of Lysander Spooner and his views on the Constitution.
The constitution hasn’t failed. We have failed…….. to exterminate the democrat party and execute all the Marxists.
You would have never had a Constitution without the moral principles that set its terms.
And you can thank Christianity for that. Actually, you should be offering up prayers in thanks. On your knees, in absolute reverence, thanking God for giving good men the grace and providence to help create this Christian Nation and codify God's Law to protect it. And you should regard anyone attempting to undo that as your mortal enemy. Not on an earthly basis, mind you - but as the war waged against Evil by Good.
Here's an unpopular reality: you cannot have rights - actual, inalienable, human rights - without God. Whether you realize it or not, whether you appreciate it or not, whether you want to admit it or not - when you talk about rights, you're talking about God. If you think it's anything BUT that, then you're not talking about rights. You're talking about dispensations from the State. Which can and will be revoked at their whims.
You know, my favorite thing about this site is its name. As if reason is some magical inherent authority from which we've discovered rights. Reason gives us an argument for Life, Liberty, and Property. Reason has also given us an argument for Genocide/Abortion, Eugenics, and Slavery.
Whose reason, is the question you ultimately have to ask. And under what unassailable authority? There's only one answer. And it's not the State, the Collective, the Society, the Majority, the Minority, or even the Individual.
You want to celebrate Thanksgiving, Ronnie? Because I absolutely want that for you. Just remember Who you should be thanking for it all, and why. Luke 20:25.
Pure bullshit, AT ...
Language.
And one can't help but notice you're devoid of an explanation of where your rights come from.
I am not devoid of the explanation. Where did you ask for it? My opinion of the source of our rights is that they arise automatically from a consideration of what is necessary to the state of liberty. Liberty and freedom are not identical. Liberty is the maximum amount of personal freedom one person or group of persons can exercise without encroaching on another person's equal right to do the same. This creates an automatic boundary between people and their individual freedom, although sometimes it is difficult for even an honest person to tell exactly where that line might lie in a particular case. This leads to the founders listing a set of the most obvious and most easily defined enumerated rights; and an inumerable number of unenumerated rights necessary to maintaining liberty for a large number of people trying to co-exist in productive peace.
Where did you ask for it?
I didn't. Why would I? You evidenced no indication of a rational discussion and made no points that suggested a need for further conversation. You just spit out some profanity and then ran away.
My opinion of the source of our rights is that they arise automatically from a consideration of what is necessary to the state of liberty.
Why is a state of liberty necessary? Is that some kinda "human right?" If so, where does it come from? What authority defends it as such?
Liberty is the maximum amount of personal freedom one person or group of persons can exercise without encroaching on another person's equal right to do the same. This creates an automatic boundary between people and their individual freedom
Sure. But all someone has to say in response to your argument is, "My opinion of the source of rights is screw you."
That has no more or less authority than what you said. I mean, FFS, you admitted it was just some kind of weird vague baseless feeling you have about how people should be treated. (What do you think an opinion is, Doc?)
This leads to the founders listing a set of the most obvious and most easily defined enumerated rights
No, that was God. God led them to that. God is the only source in all of human history that's ultimately rooted in that notion. Literally, the ONLY one.
He even went so far as to OUTRIGHT EXPLAIN "for even an honest person to tell exactly where that line might lie in a particular case."
The Founders weren't doing anything new and unique. Everything they got behind had been explained long before they picked up their muskets.
and an inumerable number of unenumerated rights necessary to maintaining liberty for a large number of people trying to co-exist in productive peace.
Hi Bernie.
You do know that most of the Founders were not fundamentalists and would have disagreed (some quite strongly) with your statement of the source of rights.
Note, I'm not disagreeing with you about the importance of morals to match and support rights, I'm disagreeing with your statement that the only possible source of rights is religion. You are, quite simply, wrong as evidenced by the many, many very moral but non-religious people across the world and throughout history (and also by the many, many religious people who nonetheless manage to be utterly devoid of morals). Religion can be a source of morals for some people but it is emphatically not the only source.
Who said they were fundamentalists?
AT did, though he did not use that word. I say that because AT's description of Christianity does not even come close to all Christians. It does, however, come reasonably close to the subset of Christians that have described themselves over the past half-century as fundamentalist.
You do know that most of the Founders were not fundamentalists and would have disagreed (some quite strongly) with your statement of the source of rights.
Maybe, but they'd be wrong for the same reason. Good thing they got on board despite that.
Note, I'm not disagreeing with you about the importance of morals to match and support rights
I didn't say "importance of morals." I said God. You cannot have rights without God. Otherwise they have zero basis or authority behind them to establish them as rights.
You might be thinking of permissions (often but not always correctly regarded as "civil rights"), or socially-agreed to living terms (often but not always correctly regarded as "a social contract"), or possibly even just a nice way to live your life (often but not always correctly regarded as "relativism"). That's fine. But each is a separate conversation, and none of those conversations have anything to do with rights.
If we're talking about rights (you seem to be conflating them with moral standards), particularly the human rights we had in mind when this nation was founded, we're talking about God. There's just no two ways about it.
And that's the point. Where does the authority to assert an foundational, fundamental, guaranteed, inalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness come from?
There's only one answer. It's God.
It's why you should be thanking Him.
AT did, though he did not use that word.
lol
AT's description of Christianity
Where did I describe Christianity? I was talking about rights. Not religion.
I'm disagreeing with your statement that the only possible source of rights is religion.
INALIENABLE rights... and not RELIGION -... GOD
You do know that most of the Founders were not fundamentalists and would have disagreed (some quite strongly) with your statement of the source of rights.
Given your "creative" interpretation of what AT wrote a day ago, your interpretation of what the FF wrote is, at best, highly suspect.
Although I agree in general with the premise, I also believe that the Constitution has indeed failed. It was brilliantly conceived and implemented by the Framers; and I agree that the Fourteenth Amendment was, mostly, an improvement. The flaw that has resulted in the ultimate failure of the Constitution has been the Amendment process itself. Generations of politicians have used that process to erode the very Founding principles that the writer says we should be grateful for this Thanksgiving. Some things in the Constitution should have been off limits for Amendments and other Founding principles should have been much more clearly encoded to give an activist Judiciary much less leeway to "interpret"
The US Constitution was crap the day it was written. It was a racist document that ensured minority bigot rule.
Lol. Everything Is So Terrible And Unfair, molly.
You’re so miserable. It’s awesome. Haha.
HE'S just trolling
Is this what they teach in china?
Molly that was the part that was corrected by the Civil War and the Fourteenth Amendment. Just because there were flaws doesn't mean that the entire Constitution was crap. The Constitution was a compromise and likely would not have been ratified at all if not for the "three-fifths" compromise. History would have been much different - at the very least slavery would not have been ended as soon as it was - without that.
I believe there's a considerable difference between "failure" and "opportunities for improvement". The issues you cite, while valid, seem more to me to be the latter.
I think it's important to remember that for all our government's failings, it's still the most respectful of fundamental rights in the world.
I stand by my assessment of the severity of the failure. We have massive failure of the Congress to do its job within the principles of limited government. We have massive failure of the Supreme Court to uphold the original intent by striking down Legislative forfeiture and unconstitutional laws and regulations. And we have massive failure of checks and balances resulting from those Legislative and Judiciary failures resulting in a huge bureaucracy enforcing unconstitutional laws and regulations at the behest of an Executive branch whose scope and authority is not even remotely limited.
The failure of the Constitution is that it assumed the different branches would use their power to hold the other branches in check. They didn't imagine that the branches would collude to undermine and ignore the limits set upon government by the document.
I think that they DID imagine it but were unable to think of anything that could prevent the people from giving away the liberty that they had been handed over time. Ben Franklin has been alleged to have told someone as they were leaving the meeting, "A Republic, Madam, if you can keep it."
Commie says what?
The problem is the opposite: it is too difficult to amend the Constitution, it is the hardest to amend in the world so judges ignore it and citizens and legislators don't bother to propose amendments because they know that none will ever pass.
“ system that channels conflict without destroying liberty”
Per this test the Constitution had failed. We have a felon traitor rapist liar as president. The military is illegally occupying US cites. ICE is an unaccountable army of thugs. Congress has been neutered and SCOTUS cares only about pushing fascism. Civil liberties are in retreat in the face of bigots.
Lol. Oh man, I’m so thankful for this. Keep whining, molly. The rest of us are doing great.
Haha. Loser.
Is this what is advertised in china?
He's like a child that just discovered new words but doesnt know what they mean or how to use them yet
Of course the Constitution has failed! That's one of the favorite excuses (along with "Democrats did it first!") used by Trump defenders to excuse his unconstitutional actions! If it hasn't failed then that means Trump can't do whatever he wants! Noooooo!
I honestly dont think you've actually ever read the constitution. Half of what you cry isnt even informed by the document, but instead informed by maddow.
The Constitution is crap. First of all it still allows slavery. It allows coercive taxation. It has a fundamental flaw that makes it basically useless, it doesn't prohibit government coercion. The problem we have is coercive government. Government initiating force against the people is tyranny. The only way to ensure our liberty is to prohibit government coercion.
Government is force. It's purpose is to use force so the rest of us don't have to in our daily lives. This way we can settle disputes in court without resorting to violence. It is a way for us to use organized violence in response to organized violence. Unfortunately it is also run by fallible humans, so it sucks. But it's better than the alternative. As far as taxes go, that's just how the people with the monopoly on force fund their operations. You know, with force.
It is also inevitable.
Let's say for a moment that there is no government. What happens next? That's pretty easy. Some people will produce for themselves while others will use force to take from those who produce. Before long the takers organize, and they basically do what they want because organized violence always triumphs over individuals. Before long they declare themselves to be the protectors of the people they are looting, and viola you've got a government run by a warlord.
Our government is better than that hypothetical one because we've got a Constitution that is supposed to restrain those who use force. Sure it isn't perfect, but it's the best that humans have come up with so far.
But I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of what government is if you think it can operate without coercion, initiation of force, and taxation. Because that is what government is. Take that away and government is merely a suggestion, and we're back to the anarchy that precedes being ruled by a warlord.
Wrong on both counts. The Constitution no longer allows slavery - the Thirteenth Amendment corrected that. And the Constitution never allowed coercive taxation until the Sixteenth Amendment. The problem we have is failure of the Supreme Court to strike down unconstitutional laws and regulations; and failure to absolutely uphold the first Ten Amendments under original intent.
Wrong on both counts.
The 13A allows slavery as punishment for a crime. And “coercive taxation” (I assume you mean income tax) was allowed. The 16A removed the requirement that it be returned to the state in proportion to population.
That is the DEFINITION of "coercive" in this context! If the Federal government can tax one state in favor of another state it means they can punish one state and reward another state for whatever reason Congress or the President might find. It is exactly the state of affairs we find ourselve in now - massive taxation for unconstitutional purposes, with recovery by the states only with strings attached. If there is another meaning for "coercive" besides "Comply with our mandates or forfeit your tax dollars" I don't know what it might be!