“Happy Constitution Day” was the wire from one of our readers, Stephen MacLean of the Disraeli-Macdonald Institute. He was referring to the fact that the Constitution was signed on this date 228 years ago. He noted that last night’s debate among the Republican candidates at the Reagan Library lacked what he called “many vocal supporters of constitutional limits on executive power,” apart from the “rare mention” by Senator Paul and Governor Huckabee. These were our sentiments exactly, animating our long-standing call for a debate on the Constitution.

It’s not that we didn’t find the debate last night illuminating. In many ways it was a fabulous encounter. Carly Fiorina, in particular, finally got a chance to show of what she’s made. She trounced Donald Trump and several of the other candidates. She was devastating on Planned Parenthood, informed on foreign policy, and clear about the need for rebuilding the military. Senator Rubio gave an exceptionally fluent sketch of his foreign policy vision. Governor Christie came off better than usual, and Governor Bush struck us as a particularly thoughtful member of a great family.

For what we really hunger, though, is a debate on the Constitution itself. It is the only document that the winner of this presidential election is going to have to swear to preserve, protect, and defend as he or she faithfully executes the presidency. Plus, an oath to support the Constitution must, the Constitution itself requires, be sworn by every officer, legislator, and judge of the federal and all state and local governments. Yet the way the debates have been conducted, we are gaining little sense of how the candidates think about this parchment — if they think about it at all.

The best glimpse we got was from Senator Rand Paul, who made the Constitution his signature point in his opening statement when he said: “I spend my days defending the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. I think there’s nothing more important than understanding that the Constitution restrains government, not the people.” This is an obsession that he inherited from his father, and while we don’t agree with either of them on all its points, they both deserve the thanks of a grateful nation for their career-long campaigns to keep the constitutional basics at the center of our debate.

Beyond Dr. Paul’s opening statement at Simi Valley, the word “constitution” was spoken but 12 times. Governor Huckabee gave it a glancing mention in respect of the Rowan, Kentucky, county clerk, whose refusal to issue in her name marriage licenses to same sex couples led to her being jailed for contempt of a United States district court. We think the clerk’s claim for an accommodation has more of a constitutional basis than she is being given credit for. We’d have liked to see a discussion on — to cite one issue the clerk is raising — the religious tests clause.

Governor Walker referenced the Constitution when, in the context of remarks about Planned Parenthood funding, he spoke of the filibuster. His point was that it’s not the Constitution that requires sixty votes for the Senate to consider a bill. The Constitution establishes that each house of Congress may determine the rules of its proceedings. That would have been a point to open up for the candidates — how well do they understand the principles of our own government? Mrs. Fiorina got the amendment process wrong; it requires not two-thirds but three-quarters of the states.

That’s a detail, though. It came in the context of an all-too-glancing discussion of the 14th Amendment. Here Donald Trump was in his most thoughtful role, even if we disagree with him. What does the Mighty 14th actually say about birthright citizenship? To those of us who are of the plain-language school of constitutional interpretation, the 14th certainly does give citizenship to persons whose mothers scooted, even illegally, over the border to give birth on American soil. The only one who mentioned that this hasn’t been definitively adjudicated was Dr. Paul

The Constitution was the elephant in the room when the debate veered off into a bizarre attack on the Chief Justice of the United States, John Roberts. What a blunder it was for Governor Bush to question Chief Justice Roberts’ appointment by Mr. Bush’s own brother, ‘W’. The far better approach would have been to get into the substance of what bothers the candidates about the Chief’s decisions in the Obamacare and same-sex marriage cases. One ended up as a taxing power case, the other as an equal protection case. How do the candidates view those issues?

Governor Huckabee marked the 10th Amendment, which reserves to the States or to the people powers neither delegated by the Constitution to the United States nor prohibited by it to the states. He suggested that half the time, every governor on the stage found his biggest fight was not with the state legislature or even the Democrats but with the federal government. This, though, is the same federal government each candidate was vying to lead. So it strikes us as important to comprehend where the candidates would draw the line once they were at the head of the federal government they’ve battled.

Whether a debate on the Constitution can be organized for the Republican — or, for that matter, Democratic — primaries, this is at this stage doubtful. But how about a debate on the Constitution between the two individuals who are finally nominated? Both parties select their nominees in July, the Republicans at Cleveland, the Democrats at Philadelphia, the city in which the Constitution was crafted. There are lots of wonderful cities as possible venues for the debate. But a good date for it would be on Constitution Day a year hence, kicking off the final drive of the nominees toward the vote in November.

________

228 is the number of years since the signing of the Constitution; the number was mistated in an earlier edition.