Bedrock of the Constitution

New American ^ | October 30, 2008 | Edwin Vieira, Jr.

[parousia]

Understanding how the Constitution was based on the Declaration of Independence provides the knowledge needed to defend our God-given rights.

Would any reasonably prudent businessman sign a proposed contract involving a large-scale venture to be conducted over many years, if the other party admitted that most of the contract's terms were undefined, that some terms were so vague as to be undefinable, and that in the future he intended to interpret all of the contract's provisions in whatever matter might suit his own purposes at that time? Obviously not. Yet this is precisely the theory of "the living Constitution" that all too many judges and lawyers actually put into practice today. In essence, they contend that Americans have a constitution with no fixed meaning and that the Constitution therefore can be interpreted, reinterpreted, and reinterpreted yet again in order to advance the political and economic agenda of public officials and their clients in special-interest groups.

Central to this theory is the claim that no truly "unalienable rights" exist — that all individual rights are subject to "reasonable regulation" by the state, particularly if public officials can point to some purported "compelling governmental interest" for doing so. Thus, the government may curtail some individual rights entirely under certain circumstances, and may limit all such rights to some degree under some circumstances.

[parousia]

A Fox News reporter wrote, during Obama's campaign, that he views our society not as static and the same is true of the law. He, along with many liberals consider the Constitution to be a living and breathing document and that "the law and the justices who interpret it have to understand that.” Obama criticized Justice Thomas, a conservative member of the court,as not a strong jurist or legal thinker. He voted against both Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito, two appointees of President Bush who vote with Thomas on many issues. World Net Daily reported Obama believes the Constitution is flawed because it fails to address wealth redistribution, and says the Supreme Court should have intervened years ago to accomplish that. "The empathy to understand what it’s like to be poor, or African-American, or gay, or disabled, or old," he said, "is the criteria by which I’m going to be selecting my judges.” Obama also committed himself to respecting the Constitution but said the founding document must be interpreted in the context of current affairs and events. According to many, especially liberals, America already has rejected the Constitution,

[Neoliberalnot]

Obama “interprets” the Constitution just as Mugabe does. This is called the african logic of ruling the stupid crowd. Both are crooks and not the brightest ones at that.

[jedi150]

One needs to read and understand the Federalist Papers in order to understand the Constitution AND Bill of rights AND the Declaration of Independence to get the full meaning of all these documents.

[AJMCQ]

Article II, Section 1, Paragraph 5:

No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President;

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

One needs to read and understand the Federalist Papers in order to understand the Constitution AND Bill of rights AND the Declaration of Independence

The very idea that human beings have individual rights not subject to the whims of an earthly monarch, but subject to the laws of Yahweh, is directly from Moses.

Mosaic Law (of which the Ten Commandments is just a part) is the foundation of Western Civilization. Genesis is the primary focus of the Declaration of Independence, from where our Constitutional rights are derived. The Ten Commandments are the foundation of our judicial system.