You cannot separate the Constitution from the populace, the political culture. People are naive to think that some document alone, in itself, can prevent tyranny. This is the kind of hokum libertarians often spout when it comes to their rigid separation of Free Market and government. What matters is that the Constitution lives in the hearts and minds of people, and appeal to that document carries a lot of weight.
Fred: "Well,
The Constitution says blah blah blah blah blah."
Jimbo: "OK, you win."
It works in the United States because people are indoctrinated from an early age to believe that the Founding Fathers had some grand over-arching vision for society. Never mind 21 out of the 55 delegates favored some form of monarchy, or the obvious compromises built into the Constitution (3/5, no export taxes, slave trade ends in 1808, the structure of the bicameral legislature).
The Constitution can be viewed as a paternalistic document when we look at, say, the qualifications for running for elected office. Do you distrust people to elect someone under the age of 35 to the Presidency? Can we not trust the people to elect someone who was born in another country? The Father-knows-best elitist-guardian mentality can especially be seen in the Electoral College and the election of Senators (until the 17th Amendment). (See Madison's argument in _The Federalist Papers #51_.)
Republicans are interesting characters in that they rail against government, but they basically buy into the notion that government should not be questioned. Well, government should not be questioned when it's spying us, prosecuting wars, conducting secret, illegal wars, and so on, but when we're talking about providing health insurance to sick children -- oh dear Lord, "New Ager" is gonna have a conniption fit. My goodness, the threat to liberty is grave indeed. Let's put on our whiny voices: "think about the
children."
Jefferson wanted lots of Constitutional conventions and did not **** himself over Shays' rebellion ("The tree of liberty must be refreshed with the blood of patriots and tyrants from time to time," revolution every 25 years, etc). Madison's counter-argument is succinctly stated in Federalist #49:
every appeal to the people would carry an implication of some defect in the government, frequent appeals would, in a great measure, deprive the government of that veneration which time bestows on every thing, and without which perhaps the wisest and freest governments would not possess the requisite stability.
This is because common people are vulnerable to their passions (or "appetites" as Plato argued). In Federalist 51 Madison famously says, "If men were angels, no government would be necessary." But of course something like three-quarters of Americans believe in Angels, so #49:
The reason of man, like man himself, is timid and cautious when left alone, and acquires firmness and confidence in proportion to the number with which it is associated. When the examples which fortify opinion are ancient as well as numerous, they are known to have a double effect. In a nation of philosophers, this consideration ought to be disregarded. A reverence for the laws would be sufficiently inculcated by the voice of an enlightened reason. But a nation of philosophers is as little to be expected as the philosophical race of kings wished for by Plato. And in every other nation, the most rational government will not find it a superfluous advantage to have the prejudices of the community on its side.
