What Constitution?

What is and isn't "constitutional" has become a measure of right and wrong that supersedes all others. As such, competing standards have melted away to a point where sin is determined by what the United States Constitution enumerates, or perhaps more accurately, by what self-appointed experts claim it does. It's ridiculous, however, to conclude that the drafters intended this to be the case. And there is the conflict.

For generations the battle lines have been drawn between those of us who take directly the words of this document, supplemented by others from the men that created it, and those who rely on activism, creative interpretations of the language and the nebulous notions like an "evolving standard of decency". It isn't difficult to see which perspective is dominating the contest. So lopsided is it that constructionists can be dismissed as quaint throwbacks at best, or disciples of sexist, slaveholding white men at worst.

On virtually a daily basis, comes news of yet another instance where portions of our national charter have been discarded, or created out of thin air. One of the most egregious examples was the 1973 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Roe vs. Wade, that was inventively based on the unstated "right to privacy". Although the product of thinking that approaches committable lunacy, this ad hoc "right" is revered by American women and second only to their right to vote. To preserve it, no aspect of constitutional integrity or corner intellectual honesty is spared. Essential to its defense, the impression is promulgated that if Roe vs. Wade were overturned abortion would instantly become illegal. It would do no such thing. The decision to allow it or not would then be left up to the voters and their elected representatives. All that would be accomplished is the retrieval of a little constitutional integrity by acknowledging the obvious, that a right to abortion just isn't in there.

Recent weeks have seen a flurry of federal decisions concerning the death penalty. The advent of genetic technology has become a hammer for those seeking to put an end to it and has unquestionably distorted the debate both inside and outside the courtroom. The impression is peddled that DNA evidence is freeing hordes of wrongly convicted people who were rescued mere moments before being marched off to their deaths. In truth, the numbers and circumstance are grossly exaggerated. What's most maddening about the DNA angle in discrediting capital punishment is that while a few have been exonerated, the technology more often shows those who remain on death row and those newly convicted are more definitively guilty than ever before. But this is not part of the discussion.

In an atmosphere fueled by intentionally misleading DNA rhetoric, U.S. District Judge Jed Rakoff declared the 1994 Death Penalty Act unconstitutional and characterized capital punishment as "state-sponsored murder of innocent human beings". The ruling suggests that the death penalty violates the constitutional provision for "due process". But if the argument were taken to its logical conclusion, absent an absolute guarantee that the convicted are indeed guilty, all prison doors should be thrown open and prosecutions brought to a halt.

Among the most popular approaches in contriving a basis to end capital punishment is to appeal to the stated constitutional prohibition against "cruel and unusual punishment". It was this method that provided for the Supreme Court's decision against executing the "mentally retarded". The decision referenced popular opinion, a consideration outside the court's mandate, when it ruled that executing someone of low IQ was unconstitutional. Of course measuring intelligence is highly subjective. With this new standard, defendants are unlikely to be inspired to do well. Producing a high score and qualifying for the gas chamber is hardly an incentive.

All but forgotten is the context within which the safeguard against cruel and unusual punishment was adopted. During that time, public humiliation, disembowelments, and multiple other creative tortures were still in use around the world. It was this type of barbarism that was being guarded against. Not limited to the issue of the death penalty, the phrase has been used to provide prisoners with everything from weight rooms, to cable TV, to internet access. It is difficult to believe that the founders had such amenities in mind. In order to accept the increasingly innovative interpretations of the Constitution we have to believe that the founders were not only intent on creating a republic but also determined to deconstruct their society in every respect.

It is this unspoken presumption that has emboldened activists, on and off the bench, to distort the Constitution nearly beyond recognition. The moment that we accepted the idea that the Constitution was a "living document" we sentenced it to death. Perhaps more correctly we deliberately infected it with a terminal case of cancer. The document now resembles a tumor-like mass that only marginally retains its original form and whose ultimate demise is insured by its own unregulated development. The tragedy is that it was imbued with a life of sorts, in that a mechanism was established to facilitate amendment. But that process was deliberately cumbersome and time consuming. It's far more convenient, as we have seen, to have a tiny group of elites in black robes, appealed to by their sycophantic, legal minions, add or eviscerate entire sections in the blink of an eye.

There is no better testament to the bastardization of our national charter than the manner in which it has been contorted to remove religion from the public square and drive our culture to near secularization. In an effort that borders on fanaticism, the intent of the founders to prevent the establishment of an official religion, as with the Church of England, has been extrapolated to mean that the government must be cleansed of faith. Likewise, anything connected to "government funding" must demonstrate the same separation. But as we see daily, there is almost nothing that can't be connected to public money. Considering the assumption, as in the school vouchers debate, that tax breaks are in fact gifts from the government, the case could conceivably be made that those claiming tax exemptions on their homes should be prohibited from religious practices within them.

It is this atheistic dogma that has forced graduating high school valedictorians to feign a sneeze, triggering a pre-planned and unified "G-d Bless You", as a way to include a prayer in public school graduation ceremonies. The most visible result of late is the ruling of a San Francisco federal appeals court declaring the Pledge of Allegiance unconstitutional. Father and admitted atheist, Michael Newdow, objected to its recital in the presence of his daughter, and decried it as a violation the First Amendment. Though igniting a national uproar, it's scarcely distinguishable from countless other rulings handed down by revisionist judges that have produced an atmosphere favorable to Mr. Newdow's kind. It has also done little to disturb the highly exaggerate "wall of separation" rhetoric that dominates that debate and has thoroughly taken hold in the judiciary.

As much, if not more of a concern for Newdow and his supporters might be the arrival of the Fourth of July and our national celebration of The Declaration of Independence. Undeniably, the text or our founding document is more clearly rooted in faith than the Pledge of Allegiance. Any honest reading of it would not only compel one to avow this but also to recognize its direct connection to the Constitution as a mission objective:

But admitting this spawns a bit of a problem now doesn't it? Accepting what is obvious here would create the indefensible position of possibly declaring the Constitution itself to be unconstitutional.

When raised, as it was with Michael Newdow in a Fox News interview, The Declaration of Independence is discounted as holding no legal standing. This will undoubtedly come as a pleasant surprise to the British. Considering the wildly creative arguments that have made abortion a constitutional right and pornography a type of speech, the case could seemingly be made that we remain self-governing colonies of the British Empire. Once they get word of this, a hefty bill for the 226 years in back taxes plus penalties is sure to be on the way.

Even if a "wall of separation" is successfully constructed between the U.S. Constitution and The Declaration of Independence, this doesn't solve the problem of the declaration's unmistakably religious underpinnings. The 4th of July is a federally mandated holiday upon which 2 million federal employees are provided with a day off at public expense. This doesn't include the legions of other state and municipal employees who are granted a similar gift. The preservation and protection of the original copy, in storage meant to survive a nuclear blast, should be seen then as public dollars going to a document infused with conspicuous religious references. Furthermore, the inclusion of it in any public school curriculum must be a violation as well. Requiring students to study, or worse yet memorize it can only be interpreted as religious indoctrination by crusaders who put a stop to individual prayer in schools and prevented the Boy Scouts from gathering on public property, because! of their Christian precepts.

The time, however, might not be right to litigate this. As the Pledge decision has demonstrated, the country is still too wrapped up in all that post-9/1l, rally-around-the-flag nonsense. But this too shall pass. And be assured that someone out there is inspired by Michael Newdow, encouraged by revisionist judges, oblivious to the original intent of the Constitution and galled by all that G-d stuff in The Declaration of Independence. It's only a matter of time before some concerned parent ends up in a courtroom.

those who rely on activism, creative interpretations of the language and the nebulous notions like an "evolving standard of decency".

We all know who they are don't we? When are we going to realize that they are determined, relentless, and becoming more organized by the day? They have one objective, the destruction of liberty. Until the sheeple that follow them understand that the concept of liberty must be held sacred by each individual human being, that it is immoral by anyone's standards, religious or otherwise, for one person to demand anything of another, this heinous behavior will continue.

What Constitution? Why, the one over which we're going to fight the next American Civil War. Like it or not, ready or not, that's what's looming on the horizon. That's the elephant in the living room whose existence no one cares to acknowledge.

U.S. District Judge Jed Rakoff declared the 1994 Death Penalty Act unconstitutional... and characterized capital punishment as "state-sponsored murder of innocent human beings". The ruling suggests that the death penalty violates the constitutional provision for "due process"...

One wonders then how the judge explains this language;

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.-US Constit.,Amend. #5(emphasis mine,of course)

Among the most popular approaches in contriving a basis to end capital punishment is to appeal to the stated constitutional prohibition against "cruel and unusual punishment"Among the most popular approaches in contriving a basis to end capital punishment is to appeal to the stated constitutional prohibition against "cruel and unusual punishment"

See above.Obviously,when writing the Bill of Rights,at which time the limits of government power vis-a-vis the citizens was paramount,the framers went out of their way to make clear that the death penalty would apply in some cases.

As far as the separation of church and state argument goes,I only note that it's revisionists refer to the "establishment" clause,as though the next six words don't exist...or prohibit the free exercise thereof.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.