12 I CHRONICLESnWHO’S IN CHARGE HERE? by Samuel FrancisnAmerica, in case you haven’t noticed, is lost in the throesnof celebrating the writing of its Constitution, which isnnow two centuries old. The somewhat labored efforts to fixnpublic attention on the historic document are largely thenwork of former Chief Justice Warren Burger and his ownnprivate bureaucracy in the Commission on the Bicentennialnof the U.S. Constitution, as well as the legal profession, thenmass media, and the usual contingent of do-goodingnschoolteachers who have temporarily suspended their instructionnin the intricacies of sexuality and collective guiltnover what we did to the Indians, blacks, women, andnbuffaloes and are now passionately handing out trivianquizzes on the color of James Madison’s socks.nBut the national rapture over our fundamental law doesnnot match the fevers manufactured a few years ago when wenobserved the centennials of the War Between the States andnthe American War for Independence. War, wrote ThomasnHardy, makes ripping good history, but it also makes fornhistoric rip-offs every hundred years or so, when we pine fornthe return of bloodshed fraught with moral import. Some-nSamuel Francis is deputy editor of the editorial page ofnthe Washington Times.nnnhow the sober deliberations of the Framers in the PhiladelphianConvention just don’t stir the glands like Gettysburgnand Bunker Hill, and the attempts of public officials toninstruct us in the minuhae of the Framers’ debates come offnrather like the efforts of earnest mothers who insist onnreading their children old-fashioned fairy tales when thenurchins would much prefer the Saturday morning cartoons.nAmong the year’s festivities have been some rather glumnproceedings in the U.S. Congress having to do with thenConstitution and its proper interpretation. The recentlynconcluded necktie party that passed as the Senate JudiciarynCommittee’s hearings on Judge Robert Bork dealt tangentiallynwith this matter, but more expansively on the characternand personality of the jurist who was unwise enough tonallow his name to com£ under the purview of the committee.nAlthough it did not appear in the hearing record,ninformation revealed by one of the lesser lights of Washingtonnjournalism. The City Paper, helped set the tone of theninquiry. Its reporters managed to procure a list of video filmsnthat Judge Bork had rented, and proceeded to regale theirnreaders with the titles. They seemed to be mainly AlfrednHitchcock films of the 1940’s, and some disappointmentnwas expressed that the nominee was not a fan of “Story ofn