Reevaluating Constitutionalism: The Clash of Moral Visions

The discourse surrounding American constitutionalism highlights a significant ideological divide regarding the interpretation and application of the Constitution. Some factions on the right argue that the Constitution is merely procedural and lacks a moral foundation, advocating for substantive political outcomes through common good constitutionalism. However, this perspective underestimates the role of proceduralism, which is not amoral, but rather essential in shaping moral character through established rules and norms that respect individual rights. The Constitution itself embodies a moral vision aimed at promoting civic responsibility and individual ownership of societal welfare. The critique suggests that diminishing protections for minority rights would ultimately undermine the very moral vision these factions espouse. Far from being mere proceduralism, the existing constitutional framework serves as a safeguard against the authoritarian use of power and protects democratic principles, ensuring that even minority interests are defended against potential tyranny. Reevaluating this framework reveals the need for a balanced approach that respects constitutional constraints while engaging with substantive moral concerns, advocating for a return to more localized, incremental governance that aligns with foundational democratic values.