In Woodrow Wilson and the Roots of Modern Liberalism, Ronald J. Pestritto makes an observation that is perhaps the most important abuse of the English language that Americans should know. In order to concoct the notion of a “living Constitution”, the Wilson administration redefined liberty away from personal liberty. To them, it meant liberating government from the shackles of the Constitution.[1]
The whole purpose of the US limiting, written Constitution is to limit government from infringing upon the rights of the people. By liberating government from the Constitution, the rights of all Americans have been jeopardized – and it started over a century ago.
When the founding generation talked of “liberty and freedom”, they fully intended to prevent the government from infringing upon personal liberty and freedom.
The colonial era was a time of divergence among the British colonies. The constitutional era would be a time of colonial convergence. The result was a social shift in priorities. Old reasons for colonial establishment were replaced by a unifying desire for liberty and freedom. The meaning of these two terms is distinct but, at times, inseparable.
Not only were colonial societies divergent, but apparently the concepts of liberty and freedom were diverse. David Hackett Fischer has written extensively about the unique meanings of these terms in Liberty and Freedom, A Visual History of America’s Founding Ideas. This page will give a really crude overview of the distinctions. In truth, every English-speaking individual probably has a unique interpretation of the words. As Fischer points out, English is unique in that it is the only language in the world that has two distinct words that seem to mean the same thing. But they do have separate origins and really convey two separate meanings.
Fischer claims that the Enlightenment thinkers ignored the origins of the words and made their own definitions. Most political science today uses the definitions of the Enlightenment. Fundamentally, freedom is simply a lack of constraint. That is, if one is not locked up in chains, he or she is free. On the other hand, he viewed liberty as freedom constrained by law. In short, freedom ignores the consequences of actions, while liberty accounts for them. Only educated colonists were aware of this interpretation.
The enlightenment started after colonization had started, so the most common interpretation among colonists would be what Fischer calls the ancient meanings. The etymology of the roots is totally different. Liberty has its origins in the Mediterranean – the Latin libertas.[2] The essence of the original meaning expands on the ancient concept of master and slave. It implies separation from dependency. On the other hand, the root of freedom is the Germanic frei, which comes from the same source as friend. Whereas liberty implies independence, freedom is more socially cohesive. One becomes free when he or she “comes of age” and can contribute to the community. The notion of rights comes from this northern European concept.[3] This is why Aristotle had no concept of rights. He was talking of liberty, not freedom. The two concepts overlap but are in ways separable.
Jefferson and other framers mostly used the Enlightenment terminology, but the overlap in terms meant that the backcountry bumpkin’s understanding of liberty was compatible. Likewise, “pursuit of happiness” was harmonious with the backcountry understanding of freedom.
Both the ancient and enlightenment definitions of liberty and freedom refer to the individual, not the government. Over the last century, some Americans have embraced the notion of a “living Constitution” with the expectation that the original is hopelessly out of date and needs to be reinterpreted to keep up with the times. In truth, they are unaware that the underlying redefinition of liberty is robbing them of their birth-right of true liberty, freedom, and inalienable rights.
Article V specifically exists to allow proper updating of the Constitution to protect individual rights. It is intended to be the only legitimate way to alter the Constitution, thus making the Constitution limiting. That is, only the people’s agents (the States) can ultimately alter the Constitution. The “living Constitution” and the “Constitution Annotated” are contrivances intended to defeat the limiting nature of the US Constitution. They are unconstitutional at their core.
[1] Pestritto, Woodrow Wilson, 110–123.
[2] eleutheria (ελευθερία) in Greek.
[3] Fischer, David Hackett. Liberty and Freedom. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005. pp. 12-33 .
