As Mark Levin urges, the restoration of American liberty may require constitutional amendments for that purpose. In such an effort, the "living constitution" metaphor may be useful to us by hijacking progressive sentiments and reasoning and enlisting them in the cause of conservative reform. More than a few political battles have been won through such artifices.
I respectfully disagree with this assessment of the historical situation. I do see the term “living constitution” as a malign seed that has historically subverted our constitutional system. That is to say, the term has acquired a particular historical meaning. To then take that term and “co-opt” its use to make it mean something else strikes me as a very dubious enterprise, and makes us complicit in the destruction of language and logic.
There’s another example of this sort of rhetorical maneuver that I find equally detestable — the total redefinition of a word that has had a constant, unchanging meaning for millennia: Marriage. Historically, “marriage” has meant the official recognition (be it by family/tribe custom or religious authority or civil magistrate) of a formal, enduring compact involving specifically male–female bonding for the purpose of begetting and raising children. Under this understanding of the word, there is no basis to suppose that such a thing as “gay” — same-sex — marriage could exist in the first place — obviously, because same-sex partners do not and cannot procreate.
So, what did the progressive activists do? They redefined the term, and got legislatures and courts to back them up. I find this sort of operation totally corrupt. Now ”marriage” is whatever the loudest-mouthed bully says it is, even if (conceivably, logically) it might extend to the recognition of a “formal compact” between a man and a goat…. Or a woman and her parakeet.
Such a construct trivializes both human love and human life. Which was probably the “progressive” object of the game from the get-go.
When interested parties can redefine the very meaning of words at will, what does that do to the prospects for rational human discourse? When words lose their historic meanings, what do we have to talk about? How can we understand one another? Rather, this sounds like piling up more and more bricks for a new Tower of Babel….
So, rather than appropriate the term “living constitution” and re-twist it for our purposes, I think we should constantly remind people that this term of art is NOT referencing the Article V Amendment process. To do so is to lose the critically important recognition that “living constitution” theory is a frank, bare-faced attempt to get around the requirements of Article V. It is deliberately designed to obviate the constitutional requirement of Article V, which is: Always to submit great public questions to the deliberation and consent of the sovereign people of the several states. Ultimate questions of public polity — ultimate because they reach and apply to all Americans if enacted — cannot be decided by legislatures and courts, but must be submitted to the judgment of the whole people before they can be applied to the whole people.
Plus there is always this consideration: If you use the tactics of “the other side” (TOS), even against TOS, you are playing by their rules. Thus instantly, you are conceding tactical advantage to them. Even more importantly, you make yourself indistinguishable from them along the lines of logical and moral reasoning.
I strongly advise against “going there.” It’s not clear to me at all from reading you whether this is the sort of thing that Mark Levin — for whom I have the greatest respect and admiration — actually proposes.
You wrote,
As Mark Levin urges, the restoration of American liberty may require constitutional amendments for that purpose. In such an effort, the "living constitution" metaphor may be useful to us by hijacking progressive sentiments and reasoning and enlisting them in the cause of conservative reform. More than a few political battles have been won through such artifices.RE: “hijacking progressive sentiments and reasoning and enlisting them in the cause of conservative reform” is not something that I can conceive of happening, now or ever. It is, to me, a pipe dream. Still, I can appreciate how winning political battles often has been accomplished by means of artifice. [See: Obamacare.]
Yet to me, ultimately, this is not about winning “political battles.” That seems all by itself to trivialize the enormous problems liberty-loving Americans face. Rather, it’s about revalidating the truths that lie at the very heart and foundation of American order.
Do you really want to commit the future of We the People to artifices and stratagems? This is not a short-term contest to be decided by winners and losers. This is ultimately a project for the recovery of the American “soul,” which cannot be done by artifice, but must be sought in Truth.
To be continued…. Thank you so very much, Rockingham, for sharing your observations about these matters!