On July 2, 2017, the New York Times published a special section: an annotated version of the United States Constitution. The special section, says the Times in its introduction, comprises \u201ca slightly abridged Constitution, printed one large, dramatic sheet, as well as an introductory essay, a timeline, and annotations to help elucidate the document\u2019s meaning.\u201d The annotations come from a variety of observers, Republican and Democratic representatives [Bernie Sanders, Dana Rohrabacher, Cory Booker and others], historians, journalists, law professors [Laurence Tribe], authors, and former government officials [Janet Napolitano and others].<\/p>\n

I have now read it, in all its unwieldy, small-type glory.\u00a0 I encourage everyone to take a look at this ambitious project. Unfortunately, it\u2019s available in print only [at this writing], and you’re going to need to brush up on your map-folding skills to handle it. But it’s worth reading. I won’t do it full justice in this post, but I\u2019m offering a selection of quotes that I found particularly intriguing and informative.<\/p>\n

In his introductory essay, historian Gary Wills<\/a> gives a detailed account of the Constitution\u2019s origin story and attempts to put the words and intent of the Constitution\u2019s writers into contemporary context. Or, as the NY Times editors write in their introduction, \u201cHow might these words, written in the time of George Washington, guide us in the age of Donald Trump?\u201d<\/p>\n

Child of The Enlightenment<\/h3>\n

Wills reminds us that \u201cAmerica was the first major country founded on the principles of the Enlightenment:\u2019<\/p>\n

The founders were at the forefront of science in their day. They would have been astonished had they foreseen a president and his government defying science in matters like evolution and global warming.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Wills also underscores the uniqueness of the secular nature of the US Constitution\u2014the separation of church and state in the First Amendment:<\/p>\n

This is the one entirely innovative element in the Constitution: Everything else\u2014separated powers, federalism, the single executive, bicameralism, and independent judiciary\u2014had been known in theory or practice, or both. Only this was truly new. Ours was the first nation started without the assistance of an official deity or cult.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Will adds, provocatively, the \u201cthe disestablishment concept was in fact so new that many people have questioned whether Madison really meant it.\u201d<\/p>\n

That is why so many logical consequences of separation between church and state have in practice been denied\u2014resulting in \u201cexceptions,\u201d things like tax exemption for churches, state slogans like In God We Trust, legislative and military chaplaincies\u2026\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

The Dark Conclave<\/h3>\n

Wills\u2019 description of the process by which the framers created the Constitution eerily foreshadows [and some would say justifies] much of the secrecy we are seeing in Congress and the executive branch today. He writes:<\/p>\n

The framers of our new government were so conscious of their break with the past that they knew they had to sneak it past the very bodies that had authorized their meeting, the states that had sent them as delegates to Philadelphia\u2026The only way to avoid [being recalled] was for\u2026the participants to swear themselves to secrecy, and Washington himself would severely enforce the pledge\u2026<\/p>\n

When the convention was over, the records of the procedure were committed to Washington, with the understanding that he would hide them at Mount Vernon. Madison refused throughout his lifetime to release his own detailed diary of the sessions.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Wills also puts the founders\u2019 wariness of direct elections into a modern context, particularly with respect to the selection of federal judges:<\/p>\n

The original intent of the Constitution was to keep the judiciary independent of popular pressure\u2026That is what was so bizarre about the opposition to hearings on Merrick Garland\u2019s nomination to the Supreme Court. Republican senators like Mitch McConnell said that the nomination could not even be considered until \u201cthe people\u201d had some say on the matter through the 2016 election\u2026This was flatly contradictory to the Constitution\u2019s clear intent, which was to isolate the Supreme Court from every kind of direct vote.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Guns and Slaves<\/h3>\n

Many 21^{st<\/sup> Century arguments about the Constitution center on the Second Amendment, whose grammar [that second comma!<\/a>] and wording are confusing, and which has been used to maximum effect by the National Rifle Association to sell guns and ammunition.<\/p>\n}

Wills points out an issue that is too often ignored: \u201c\u2026just how far the poison of slavery pervaded the Constitution\u2026 the Second Amendment was also intended to protect slaveholders, who used militias to keep a firm grip on their slaves.\u201d<\/p>\n

The Second Amendment \u2026was not meant to let individuals prevent federal \u201ctyranny\u201d\u2014how could it? By training our rifles or handguns on the Army, Navy and Air Force? It was meant to guarantee the legality of a \u201cwell-regulated [that is, state-controlled] Militia to handle the states\u2019 internal problems, especially the problems of a large slave population.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

What other observers say<\/h3>\n

What do other contemporary readers of the Constitution say about it in the context of today\u2019s issues? The New York Times asked and got a wide variety of answers, some of which will confirm certain points of view, others of which will infuriate. Here are just a few:<\/p>\n

<\/a>