What is American Constitutional Republicanism?
American
The use of “American” in the phrase “American Constitutional Republicanism” is as a reference to White Anglo-Saxon Protestantism as it developed and advanced in the United States from the establishment of the first Colonies up until the Second Worlde War.
“American” informs “Constitutional” and “Republicanism” – that is to say, the Federated Polity is organised in a manner that is reflective of the White Anglo-Saxon Protestant Historical Narrative in general, and of the Branch thereof as it developed and advanced in North America up to the time of the Revolutionary War in particular.
When we say White Anglo-Saxon Protestantism in general, what we mean is those Norms that the English, Canadians, Australians, New Zealanders and Americans – being, generally speaking, the categories of people that comprise the broader White Anglo-Saxon Protestant “Arch-Nation” – share in common.
The Canadian, Australian, New Zealand and American “Branches” of White Anglo-Saxon Protestantism each developed nuances independent of the English Branch.
The Americans earned their Independence from the Fatherland through Kinetic Conflict, have a Codified Constitution, and opted not to adopt “Crowned Republicanism” as its Form of Government.
This is radically different from the other Branches, as all earned their Independence from the Fatherland through Statute Law – and, like the Fatherland, do not have a Codified Constitution and are all “Crowned Republics.”
From this perspective, your average leftist is correct when they say that the system is “rigged” against individuals who are not ancestrally White Anglo-Saxon Protestant. While in theory non-WASP individuals can fully and completely assimilate to White Anglo-Saxon Protestant norms, they overwhelmingly never do. While being ancestrally WASP is certainly the ideal means by and through which to be best suited to succeed in the United States, the pathway, which is readily available, for non-WASP individuals to fully and completely assimilate in order to achieve the same level of success that someone who is ancestrally WASP can achieve, is rarely leveraged by non-WASP individuals.
Full and complete assimilation to White Anglo-Saxon Protestant Norms is hardly ever achieved by non-WASP individuals for two reasons.
The first and most obvious is that doing so is seen and understood to mean the full and complete Abandonment of one’s Native Ethnicity – as full and complete Assimilation to the Norms of an out-group necessitates the full and complete Abandonment of one’s in-group Norms.
The second and perhaps more covert reason is because White Anglo-Saxon Protestant Norms are often seen as too individualistic, mechanical, and sterile by non-Germanic Peoples. This is often a matter of perspective, with most Germanic Cultures being similar or the same as White Anglo-Saxon Protestant and most non-Germanic Cultures generally viewed as more collectivist, flexible, and vibrant by the Germanic Peoples.
All of that to say: “American” in “American Constitutional Republicanism” is the embodiment of the History, Traditions, and Norms inherited, via birth, the body of all current living individuals who can trace their ancestry back to someone who was on the North American Continent prior to the Revolutionary War.
This is why it is incorrect to conflate “Nation,” “State” and “Country,” and “National” and “Citisen.”
A “Nation,” as described above, is the body of all individuals descended from a particular group of people while “State” is the Mechanism that has been adopted to Administer a Nation’s Homeland (which is what a Country is – the Homeland of a Nation). Not all Nations have Homelands, and thus, States (think: Kurdistan). Some Nations have Homelands but don’t have States that are fully and completely Sovereign (think: Wales, Cornwall, Scotland).
A “National” is an individual who belongs to a particular Nation while a “Citisen” is an individual who has been granted legal status to be generally resident in a Country. In keeping with how “American” is defined earlier, all Americans are therefore entitled to U.S. Citisenship, but not all U.S. Citisens are members of the American Nation. While it was never the case prior to the the ascent of Liberal Democracy, you can now be a Citisen of a Country without having an ancestral ties to the Nation whose Homeland the County is.
Constitutional
While it cannot be refuted that the Constitution establishes a Framework for the Good Operation and Administration of the Federated State, my particular use of “Constitutional” in the phrase “American Constitutional Republicanism” is as a reference to two things: Ordered Liberty and the Rule of Law.
Ordered Liberty is a concept that we need to talk more about in Right-Wing Intellectual Circles because it sits at the core of what the Constitution strives to achieve: establish a Framework within which Liberty is legally and lawfully protected from un-necessary and inappropriate Infringement and Abridgement by the Federated Polity (and the State Polities, circa Amendments).
The phrase “Ordered Liberty” is mentioned sixteen (16) times in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organisation, 597 U.S. 215 (2022). Some of those mentions are as follows:
“That provision has been held to guarantee some rights that are not mentioned in the Constitution, but any such right must be deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition and implicit in the concept of ordered liberty.” (p. 5, Majority Opinion)
“The Court must not fall prey to such an unprincipled approach. Instead, guided by the history and tradition that map the essential components of our Nation’s concept of ordered liberty, we must ask what the Fourteenth Amendment means by the term “liberty.” When we engage in that inquiry in the present case, the clear answer is that the Fourteenth Amendment does not protect the right to an abortion.” (pp. 14-15, Majority Opinion)
“The Court did not claim that this broadly framed right is absolute, and no such claim would be plausible. While individuals are certainly free to thing and to say what they wish about “existence,” “meaning,” the “universe,” and “the mystery of human life,” they are not always free to act in accordance with those thoughts. License to act on the basis of such beliefs may correspond to one of the many understandings of “liberty,” but it is certainly not “ordered liberty.”” (pp. 30-31, Majority Opinion)
“Ordered liberty sets limits and defines the boundary between competing interests.” (p. 31, Majority Opinion)
“Our Nation’s historical understanding of ordered liberty does not prevent the people’s elected representatives from deciding how abortion should be regulated.” (p. 31, Majority Opinion)
“The Court well explains why, under our substantive due process precedents, the purported right to abortion is not a form of “liberty” protected by the Due Process Clause. Such a right is neither “deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition” nor “implicit in the concept of ordered liberty.”” (p. 1, Justice Thomas Concurrence)
“The issue before this Court, however, is not the policy or morality of abortion. The issue before this Court is what the Constitution says about abortion. The Constitution does not take sides on the issue of abortion. The text of the Constitution does not refer to or encompass abortion. To be sure, this Court has held that the Constitution protects un-enumerated rights that are deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition, and implicit in the concept of ordered liberty.” (p. 2, Justice Thomas Concurrence)
As you can see, a major aspect of the High Court’s Calculus is Ordered Liberty as understood through the lens of the Nation’s history and traditions. While the High Court does not expressly say it, what they mean by “the Nation’s history and traditions is,” as earlier discussed, the Historical Narrative of the American Branch of White Anglo-Saxon Protestantism.
Universal Human Rights is part of the carefully constructed Rules Based International Order that has existed since the conclusion of the Second Worlde War. It is, however, a legal fiction – as their is no such thing as a “Universal Man.” Nations (read: Peoples) evolved in varying ecologies and thus, do not possess the same (or even similar) Norms.
What each Nation, therefore, considers to be Human Rights is solely dependent on its Historical Narrative.
Even amongst White Anglo-Saxon Protestants, the American narrative contrasts significantly from both the Father Branch and the other “Off-Shoot Branches,” as the Americans believe that Rights are non-exhaustive AND are largely Negative in nature – with Due Process of Law being a notable exception, inherited from the Father Branch with some adjustments specific to American Constitutional Republicanism.
That being the case, how each Nation understands Ordered Liberty will be divergent. As it concerns the Americans, Ordered Liberty favours the individual over the state. This is not surprising, as three of the key Tenets of the “Arch-Nation” of White Anglo-Saxon Protestants are “Rugged Individualism,” “Personal Accountability and Responsibility,” and “Delayed Gratification.”
A key element of Ordered Liberty as embodied in American Constitutional Republicanism is the Rule of Law. By the Rule of Law, we mean all persons – whether they be natural or legal – are to be held to account by “publicly promulgated, equally enforced and independent adjudicated” Laws.
In other words: the Rule of Law is the “how” of Ordered Liberty.
The end result of the Rule of Law is transparency and accountability. Ordered Liberty, which, as the High Court’s Majority Opinion in Dobbs states, “sets limits and defines the boundary between competing interests.” The way that Ordered Liberty achieves this object is by and through the Law.
It is therefore necessary to ensure that the Law is clear about:
- The Prerogatives to be wielded by each person;
- The Limits imposed on how each person can wield his Prerogatives;
- The Consequences for un-lawfully Infringing upon or Abridging a person’s Prerogatives; and,
- The standard to be employed to determine whether an Infringement or Abridgement on a person’s Prerogatives by the state is legal and lawful.
The fourth point in particular is how the Rule of Law determines “who wins and who loses” when one person believes that his Prerogatives have been infringed upon or abridged.
In the United States, the standard employed has its foundation in Footnote 4 of United States v. Carolene Products Co. 304 U.S. 144 (1938). Footnote 4 lays out three Standards of Review that the Justice System employs when attempting to determine whether, and if so, to what extent, is the Infringement or Abridgement on a person’s Prerogatives by the state is valid.
The three Standards of Review are as follows:
- Rational Basis Review – is the Infringement or Abridgement in question rationally related to a legitimate interest, whether real or hypothetical.
- Intermediate Scrutiny – does the Infringement or Abridgement in question furthers an important interest by means that are substantially related to said interest.
- Strict Scrutiny – is the Infringement or Abridgement in question is narrowly tailored and is the least restrictive means by which to achieve a compelling interest.
The uniform standard utilised by the High Court to determine if an individual’s Prerogatives have been infringed upon or abridged ensures that everyone’s Prerogatives are guaranteed into the future, and thus, creates the foundation for the continued Development and Advancement of the Common Wealth.
Republicanism
While Republicanism is indeed a Form of Government, its type is often explained away as “Representative Democracy.” However, that is not what Republicanism is – at least, not in practice. Use of “Republicanism” in the phrase “American Constitutional Republicanism” is a reference to the Nature of the Electorate. In particular, by “Republicanism,” I mean: a Highly Moralistic and Independently Educated Electorate holding the state to account to work within the boundaries of both the “American” and “Constitutional” elements of the phrase “American Constitutional Republicanism.” The Founding Fathers designed the American Common Wealth under the assumption that American men would remain the overwhelming majority of the Electorate, and that the American Electorate would remain both deeply rooted in Protestantism (“Highly Moralistic”) and deeply committed to ensuring that Government played no role in engineering Public Opinion (“Independently Educated”).
In other words: where the American Nation strayed away from the Historical Narrative that is the American Branch of White Anglo-Saxon Protestantism, it would become impossible for Government in the country at all levels to remain accountable to the American Electorate.
The conversation needs to start with Republicanism itself. The typical response given by the average U.S. voter that Republicanism is nothing more than “Representative Democracy” is deeply problematic because that is not what Republicanism is. Republicanism is about two things: Self-Governance and Civic Participation. A Nation comprised of Highly Moralistic individuals will yield the result of individuals policing their own behaviour. This greatly reduces the necessity of the state to make pronouncements regarding how individuals should and should not behave. For those individuals who are not Highly Moralistic, the Church, and participation in Civic Life by individuals who are Highly Moralistic, create a strong social accountability mechanism in lieu of pronouncements by the state.
Assuming all other necessary conditions being present, a Nation comprised of Independently Educated individuals steeped in their Nation’s Norms will naturally result in high levels of Civic Participation. Highly Moralistic and Independently Educated individuals steeped in their Nation’s Norms will desire to work in the name and on behalf of the Common Wealth of the Nation.
While sometimes it does, this does not always equate to running for Political Office. There are other ways to serve than as a Bureaucrat, a Legislator, a Law Enforcement Officer, or as a member of the Armed Services. One could serve by establishing an Independent Ministry, or being an Independent Journalist, Podcaster or Commentator. One could establish a Non-Governmental Organisation focused on a particular Policy or Accountability in a particular area. One could also establish a Business that sells crucial Goods and/or provides crucial Services to the Market. There are, of course, very particular reasons why levels of Civic Participation have declined since the 1960’s. Each of those issues need to be addressed as part of the full and complete Restoration of American Constitutional Republicanism.
However, the focus here is to make clear that the only way that “Republicanism” survives and thrives within the American context is through high levels of Civic Participation by individuals who, being steeped in the Historical Narrative that is the American Branch of White Anglo-Saxon Protestantism, are Highly Moralistic and Independently Educated.
That process must begin with people coming to a clear understanding about what “Republicanism” actually is and means.