| Abstract: | This article examines the construction of ‘People’ in current and historical interpretation of the Constitution of the United States. It argues that ‘People’ is a powerful rhetorical figure constructed to sustain a narrative that transcends the realities of hard-won social change gained by living groups of people in US history. Opposing the common professional and popular conception of the US Constitution as the oldest continually functioning constitutional document, this paper posits that there have been many US Constitutions. With particular focus on the constitutional sanction of slavery and subsequent abolition amendments, as well as looking at Supreme Court cases concerning segregation and civil rights, it is argued that the Constitution does not represent a continuity, but a series of radically new documents. The Constitution(s) of the United States must, like any other text, be read and interpreted to have meaning; that is, the Constitution(s) do not have inherent, obvious meaning equally and readily available over generations. The contrary is made to seem the case by those interpreters who perpetuate an historical narrative of liberty and ‘People’ regardless of the contradictions, exclusions and hypocrisies of reality. The fights for inclusion are obscured by the sustained appearance of a history of gradual but inevitable absorption into an ahistorical ideal. Further hidden is the possibility that the perceived ideal might itself be culturally and historically contingent. The maintenance of the view that constitutional language can have consistent, available meaning over centuries is not a neutral endeavour. It is used to justify the actions of existing American power as inseparable from an irreproachable, historically legitimated ownership of democratic social values and aims. This takes on a broader significance when considered in the light of current, aggressive exportation of ideas of ‘People,’ ‘democracy,’ ‘liberty’ and so on, as if they had self-evident and transferable meanings. |
