Punditokraterne omtalte fornylig New York Times Magazine's artikel om de klassisk-liberale/frimarkedsorienterede konservative amerikanske jurister, der i en årrække har kæmpet for en tilbagevending til den fortolkning af den amerikanske forfatning, som var fremherskende før New Deal–d.v.s. med relativt snævre rammer for, hvad forbundsstaten kan varetage af opgaver.

Jeffrey Rosens artikel vakte en del opsigt–især i denne tid, hvor der netop er en intens kamp om dommerudnævnelser i senatet, og hvor man står overfor formodentlig en eller to udskiftninger i Højesteret inden årets udgang.

Nu har min bekendt, Dr. Michael S. Greve fra American Enterprise Institute–én af dem der var portrætteret i Rosens artikel–svaret igen på denne med en ny artikel, og det går ikke stille for sig. Greves hovedbudskab er, at ja–den amerikanske forfatning er truet, men det er ikke af liberalistiske eller konservative jurister:

"Everybody, chill. Libertarians are notoriously incapable of planning a lunch. With the lone and arguable exception of Justice Clarence Thomas, all sitting justices have time and again reaffirmed New Deal precedents and shunned opportunities to limit their reach. The Rehnquist Court's federalism "revolution"–the principal target of liberal wrath–consists of margin-nibbling decisions that no ordinary American has heard of, and recent (and, probably, forthcoming) decisions strongly signal an abandonment. At the same time, the supposedly conservative Court has cranked out an amazing array of newfangled rights, especially on sexual mores. In short, I despair of our supposed plans for toppling the New Deal."

For Greve er den amerikanske forfatning derimod truet af jurister, der lader sig inspirere af europæernes måde at tænke i forfatninger på, "La Constitution" …:

"The proposed European Constitution, signed in 2004 and now awaiting ratification by member states of the European Union, spans 448 articles, including social-democratic rights to warm progressive hearts–"respect for his or her physical and mental integrity," "access to preventive health care," and "continuing education." Voters in the various EU countries may get to vote on the monstrosity, or they may not, for fear that they might reject it.

Consistent with past European practice, such as adoption of the Maastricht Treaty to cement the European Union, those who do get to vote will probably be obliged to do so until they approve. A no vote, French President Jacques Chirac has threatened, means the end of Europe.

What a yes vote means isn't exactly clear. Despite its stupendous length, the constitution leaves crucial questions–including taxing and military authorities–for a later day. A constitution, European officials say, is a "process." No backsliding from the accumulated mistakes, ever-forward movement toward ever-closer union. We will tell you later what it means and where it will end.This breed of constitutionalism differs from that of the American Founders, who confronted elected state conventions with an up-or-down choice on a Constitution of clearly defined powers and restrictions."

Man kan sige meget om amerikanske jurister–og jeg er gift med én, der nærmest er en af slagsen, så jeg er lidt (positivt) forudindtaget (og Greve selv er iøvrigt tysk)–men i lyset af den on/off småt derudaf tøffende hjemlige debat om en evt. grundlovsændring, hvor det synes som om, at det nyeste årtusindes væsentligste konstitutionelle spørgsmål er relateret til kønnet på HKH Kronprinsessens kommende barn, så må man sige, at den amerikanske forfatningsdebat finder sted på et noget højere plan. Hvem er klar til at gå i brechen for at give en evt. kommende dansk grundlovsdebat et niveau og et indhold, der er mere visionært og dybsindigt end, hvad … ahem … Niels Helveg Petersen og Aage Frandsen hidtil har kunnet levere?