What is constitutionalism?

When there is an actual dictionary definition for a term, I think the best practice is to use that definition. So, “constitutionalism” is adherence to a form of government based on an explicit constitution.

In most countries with a constitution-based government, the challenges come in what it means to “adhere.” Countries don’t want to be rewriting their constitution as major shifts in mores, culture, technology and such come about. It is up to the legislators to decide which of these shifts is to be respected enough to enact laws “consistent with” the nation’s constitution or for them to ratify an amendment to their constitution. What does it mean to be consistent with a constitution, though?

1. Strict adherence includes interpreting the statements in the constitution literally, despite changes in culture since the time of the signing of that document in interpreting each of the amendments (if there are any in a particular country) literally, as close to exactly as they were adopted. It acknowledges constitutional amendments. In the U.S., an example is that before the passage of the 19th Amendment in 1920 that gave women the right to vote, it was widely believed that “all men are created equal” did not mean that all women are created equal to men in terms of the right to vote. Strict adherence, then, required interpretation of court cases in a different context before and after that amendment passed.
2. Conservative adherence considers certain unavoidable changes in the interpretation of the constitution (including its amendments). For example, the U.S. does not have a constitutional amendment that makes clear what is constitutional regarding the use of technology, so conservative constitutional adherents have no choice but to draw analogies to conservative constitutional precedents in case decisions. Every effort is made to stay as close to a literal interpretation of the U.S. Constitution as is practical or feasible. Of course, conservative interpretations do evolve over time. The interpretation of the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments to the U.S. Constitution for nearly 90 years allowed for “separate but equal” treatment of people of different races, including allowance of segregation. Of course, “separate” was rarely “equal.” But the dominant culture had its own interesting interpretation of “equal” that would eventually be seen as not at all equal. In Brown v. Board of Education, the Warren Supreme Court voted unanimously in 1954 to overturn the Plessy v. Ferguson 1896 decision, which had ruled that state-sponsored segregation was just fine. A change in “enlightenment” had occurred in those 42 years.
3. Liberal adherence considers a constitution to be a living document that must pay attention to evolving notions of morality and temporal context, among other things (such as, in the past 50 years, the rapid changes in technology). Liberal adherents require much less lag time between previous interpretations and current interpretations of a country’s constitution. As an example, in the U.S., the sentiment of the majority of adults (as Millennials have come of age) has somewhat rapidly changed to insist that people with a variety of gender identities should have equal civil rights, including the right to a legal marriage-- independent of specific religious beliefs to the contrary. Liberal adherents on the Supreme Court readily saw this moral revelation as a valid interpretation of the U.S. Declaration of Independence, that all people are created equal. What has been interesting to witness is that at least one somewhat conservative justice saw this too— that this is a fundamental and literal interpretation of all people being created equal with certain inalienable rights.

Even nations that do not have a government based on an explicit constitution (e.g., Israel) have to deal with the degree and pace at which their nation will support changes in interpretation.  A country that is governed by religious teachings, for example, also has to make ongoing decisions about contemporary interpretations of their oral traditions and any religious documents that are part of their religious culture— the Talmud, the Q’uran, the Bible, the Vedas, the Tripitakas and Sutras, etc. As we are currently experiencing with radical Islam, a “nation” that is defined by a fundamentalist “strict adherence” caliphate means interpreting the Q’uran as the leaders imagine it would have been interpreted in the 600s C.E.

From these examples, it's easy to see that what constitutes "constitutionalism" is in the eye of the beholder.

Turning Anger into More Effective Action

So many of us are outraged at the way Blacks are treated by the American judicial system, by our public safety departments, and by any individual who stands by and does nothing to change this massive American cancer of discrimination. I’m angry and feeling powerless to bring about a change that has not occurred in the centuries since the first black people were brought to Virginia as slaves in 1619. It is the latter feeling that I must change in my heart and my actions.

Writing passionately about the problem has proven to be a waste of my time and words, except as a sane outlet for my anger. We are not powerless to bring about a tidal wave of change. But it will take all of us-- no matter our skin color or ancestry—to quell this 400-year deadly storm with the power that Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. showed us we have when we unite; when we pressure our federal, state and local government at the ballot box and in accountability for their (lack of) actions; and when we hold our courts accountable for their disparate treatment of black people.

Dr. King showed us that the path to change does not include murdering those who represent discriminatory institutions. The path does not include violent, destructive acts as an expression of determination or rage. Those actions simply reinforce a false stereotype and delay the time when this becomes a nation where all people are created equal and treated as such, a time when black lives finally matter.