Program Information

It’s almost by divine providence, that these men gathered together in that hot Constitutional Convention, and worked on it those periods of time. Ben Franklin said when he walked out after a press person asked him, “What have you wrought?” And he said, a document, a republic, if you can keep it. And that’s been tested many times and we’ve kept it.

The United States Constitution has been the foundation for the United States government and its citizens for over two hundred years. Many people believe it is the “gold standard” for fledgling democracies all over the world. It calls for the citizens to be active and for government to be accountable to those they govern. Many historians believe the Constitution has made our nation as successful and as powerful as it is; however, many of our citizens have not read or do not understand the Constitution and the foundation of our government. “Questioning the Constitution” looks at the development of the constitution, how it has been interpreted and questions whether the constitution should be reformed. This one-hour documentary was produced by WCVE PBS in partnership with the Center for Politics at the University of Virginia.

Transcript

WARNER: How many times have I referred to this magnificent instrument, which I often think it was, it’s almost by divine providence, that these men gathered together in that hot Constitutional Convention, and worked on it those period of time. You know what Franklin said when he walked out. A press person asked him, “What have you wrought?” And he said, a document, a republic, if you can keep it. And that’s been tested many times and we’ve kept it.

DOLE: You know, I think our Constitution has stood the test of time. I think we are the envy of other nations. Many countries have followed basically our Constitution. The three separate branches, I think are pretty well clearly defined. They’re co-equal. And the checks and balances sometimes, I think, there’re more checks than balances because the way the Constitution is drafted, you know, that things proceed very slowly in government. Maybe that was the intent of the drafters. But sometimes things never seem to get done.

SABATO: People often say it would be wrong to change what the founders did. They need to go back and read what the founders said. Uh, they were pretty consistent about expecting us to have regular Constitutional Conventions. They wanted each generation to reconsider what they had done. Thomas Jefferson maybe was the most radical in suggesting that there ought to be a new Constitution ever generation, 19 years, in his time. Uh, we certainly don’t need a Constitutional Convention every 19 years. I think it’s perfectly reasonable to have a Constitutional Convention in the first decade of every new century. Even if we change not a word, it would be a marvelous opportunity for civic education. People would learn about the Constitution.

HOWARD: The Constitution serves more than one purpose. At the most simple and technical level, it is a set of instructions to those who hold government power. It’s in the Preamble that the framers have spelled out the lofty purposes of government. The general welfare, the common defense and other purposes like that. I think if you linger over that language, then you begin to see what the philosophical or policy assumptions are that underlie the whole federal enterprise. So, you begin with the Preamble, and then as you move through the body of the document, it’s actually fairly logically organized.

Article I is the legislative article. That’s the article that essentially establishes Congress, says what Congress’ powers may be. So Article I quite simply is the legislative branch. Article II is the executive branch, provides for the presidency, essentially to provide for the execution of the laws. There’s some debate over whether there is inherent power in the presidency, but it does make him commander-in-chief as well as being the chief executive officer.

Article III is the article that provides for the judicial system. It says there shall be a Supreme Court. Finally, as you move towards the latter part of the Constitution, you begin to get to things like supremacy and change. You look to the future in effect.

So you start with statement of purpose—the Preamble, you set up the three branches of government, you flesh out the federal system and you look to the future. Of course it contains lots of complicated implications. I mean, interpreting it, applying it, making it work creates volumes of Constitutional law.

VMI FOOTAGE: I mean, this is tradition, you know. It’s just like. It’s the little things. It’s the little things at, at VMI that. It’s the things that the courts can’t see. Yeah. Yeah. People can’t see. If women come here, it’ll be like, you know, it’ll be like, yeah. It’s because the way it is now, because it’s all male, and as soon as they come here, it’ll change. So, they still won’t be gaining anything. Right.

RYAN: We actually do teach the case involving VMI. It’s US v. Virginia. And it talks about these stereotypes that were pretty much enshrined in some ways in the law in the way cases were being decided. That men had a certain sphere, where they were going to be active in, and that they were capable in, and then women had another, more limited sphere. And it wasn’t in, in the same sphere which would allow women to be leaders, women to go into the military, women to contribute as well as men do.

In the VMI case, it was the Department of Justice that was suing the state of Virginia, on behalf of all the citizens of, of Virginia, and particularly, those young women who wished to avail themselves of the educational opportunities at Virginia Military Institute which was a state institution. The VMI case was an opportunity for actually Justice Ginsburg, who had been one of the champions of women’s rights in the 70s, and case by case is an advocate litigating in front of the Supreme Court, now she was on the Supreme Court. So she was able to write the majority opinion there. And so that’s just one, one of those examples where a very difficult, and controversial at the time, decision is made. Now we can say whether we agree with the decision or not or whether we agree with the rationale or not. But as Americans we all agree the process is that the courts will determine that. And that the Supreme Court will be the ultimate arbiter of what a phrase in the Constitution means.

Virginia Standards