One Brit's View of The Mount Vernon Statement, and My Rejoinder

A couple of days ago, I wrote a post about the new statement of Conservative principles put forward in The Mount Vernon Statement. In the comments, Ian--a Brit--has offered some thoughts on the usefulness of "originalist" documents in a modern world. I'm going to extract his comments and my response into this post (sorry GG, it will be a long one) because I think there's an important exchange here.

His comments:

As you may understand from the following comments I am neither conservative, nor in fact American. I hope you'll allow me the privilege of commenting from an outside perspective.
In the UK the closest document we have is the Magna Carta which sought to establish the rights of the aristocracy relative to those of the crown. We no longer use this as a basis for government (it was written in 1215).
The Mt Vernon Statement reads very much like an originalist text and I suspect is intended to be somewhat originalist. Here I have a problem. I suspect none of the signatories, nor any of us, are sufficently educated in British, American and socio-political history, to properly interpret the founding principals of the United States in a truly originalist manner (i.e. one that seeks to follow the intentions of the founding fathers and understand their influences).

Here is the problem: we are incredibly detached from the situation in circa 1776. None of us are slave holders (freedom of man?), the USA is no longer a collection of semi-independent (ex-)colonies but rather a well integrated behemoth, the US military is no longer a militia established to protect the property and liberty of the citizens. Now, I'll concede the better educated and more eloquent men than me could probably counter all these points. But I would remind you of one thing: we do not try to live within a literal interpretation of the Bible for good reason (it uses metaphors and allegory and countenances horrible punishments for what are today relatively trivial practices).
One country that tries to live within a framework of a founding historical document and an originalist approach to that document is Iran. Does America want to be in that situation in a thousand years?
As for Paul Ryan's proposal: read the latest economist for a critque.
I hope no one is offended by my comments.

Here is my response:

Ian--many thanks for your thoughtful comments from a perspective (both geographically and politically) we don't get enough of here on the CW.

The Mount Vernon Statement is indeed, a restatement of what you might call "originalist" views; that is, they are restatements of the founding principles discussed broadly in our Declaration of Independence and then codified as a system of government in the Constitution.

A comparison with the Magna Carta works partially with the Declaration of Independence--which was also a statement asserting rights (and in this case, accusing King George III as having trampled upon them).

A comparison with our Constitution is however, problematic, as would then suppositions be about a document's relevance centuries after its drafting. We operate a bit differently here, in that we have a written Constitution--which includes in its provisions several means for its update and renewal should such changes be considered important by the populace (something the populace has done 27 times).

The themes touched on by the drafters of Mount Vernon Statement (limited government, federalism, republican self-government) have as of the writing of this blog post, not been repudiated, amended, or abandoned by the population of the US--and therefore, they remain the law of the land. Some believe that these basic threads in the fabric of our system of government are fraying under the pressure of a political assault by those who would wish a different basic relationship between the government and the governed.

So yes, the times have changed since the founders of the US drafted the Constitution. In that time, the document has been updated 27 times to reflect great national consensus. It is this process of consensus based renewal that--basic to the text of the document--that gives it its present-day strength. You don't like it? Change it. But if you don't like it, and your change isn't persuasive enough, well then, you'll just have to see if you convince a few more of your friends.

So while we cannot exactly adduce what it is those wise men meant or thought in 1787, we have their words as written, and we have methods of overturning their provisions.

Which brings me to some of the other points you made, namely comparisons to the Bible, and to Iran.

Let's start with the Bible. You state that we do not try to live within a literal interpretation of the Bible "with good reason". Well, some would dispute that (though I won't)--but more importantly, even the most liberal biblical scholar would have a hard time finding mechanisms within the Bible that provide for its alteration or amendment. It's just not that kind of document. Were our Constitution more like the Bible in that regard, this comparison would be apt. As it is, it is ineffective.

As for the comparison with Iran, it seems you're simply restating the Biblical problem and misstating the way things are done in the US. By missing/ignoring that our Constitution and our way of governing ourselves is subject to change by a determined majority, it doesn't surprise me that you might make an Iranian comparison. It just doesn't hold water.