Posted on 01/07/2003 9:45:46 AM PST by Stand Watch Listen
Liberals hate our enduring Constitution. They'd rather let the Constitution 'evolve' That way, they can claim their First Amendment rights when they burn the American flag, use foul language over the airwaves, and display pornography disguised as 'art' but rigidly force their agenda on us when they punish 'hate speech' impose affirmative action quotas, and otherwise destroy our unique American way of life.
In an interview with Jim Lehrer at PBS Online before the Presidential election, Al Gore summed up the leftist view of our Constitution: "You know, I believe the Constitution is a living and breathing document and that there are liberties found in the Constitution such as the right to privacy that spring from the document, itself, even though the Founders didn't write specific words saying this, this, and this. . . ." Leftists want our Constitution 'living and breathing' so they can pump their own frankensteinian form of 'life' into it.
Gore would have diluted our Constitutional freedoms by appointing leftist federal judges. Federal judges are those ladies and gentlemen who are charged with protecting our rights but usually just invent new ones to support their leftist agenda.
Gore mentioned a 'right to privacy' a right unmentioned in the Constitution that a leftist U. S. Supreme Court suddenly 'discovered' allowed abortions. PBS Online noted: "And while individual rights are considered the cherished base of U.S. law, the Constitution does not mention the right of 'privacy' anywhere. Justice Harry A. Blackmun, who argued the idea of privacy rights when he penned the Roe v. Wade decision, could not use any specific sections of the Bill of Rights or previous court rulings to explain his argument."
In almost two centuries of our nation's existence, no court until then had ever found an explicit right to privacy in our Constitution, especially as legal justification to overturn state laws limiting abortions, but leftist justices had been working toward the right for years. The Supreme Court in 1973 also found nothing in the Constitution that allowed them to overturn abortion laws, so the justices reached into their bag of tricks and voila! magically pulled out a right to privacy. In his dissenting opinion, Justice Byron White said: "The court simply fashions and announces a new constitutional right for pregnant mothers and, with scarcely any reason or authority for its action, invests that right with sufficient substance to override most existing state abortion statutes."
The dangers of disregarding the Founders´ intent become obvious in conflicting court rulings. The 5th U. S. Circuit Court recently ruled that the Second Amendment gives citizens a right 'to privately possess and bear their own firearms.' The leftist 9th Circuit Court (aka 9th Circus Court) in California ruled just the opposite a few weeks later, insisting that their version of a living and breathing Constitution doesn´t give individuals a right to bear arms. The 9th Circuit Court justices are the same scoundrels who ruled that the phrase 'under God' must be removed from our Pledge of Allegiance.
In his classic article, A ‘living´ Constitution? Cal Thomas wrote:
"Gore's view of the Constitution, shared by most political liberals, is one of the most dangerous philosophies of our time. It establishes a class of philosopher-kings who determine the rights of the people and shreds the Constitution as a document that conforms people to unchanging principles that promote their own and the general welfare.
"A 'living" Constitution, notes constitutional attorney John Whitehead, means the Constitution is 'up for grabs' and it becomes whatever the justices decide, not the people through their elected representatives."
In a review for the Delaware State Bar Association, distinguished attorney Richard A. Forsten wrote: 'To allow or provide for an interpretative strategy which would allow the meaning of the Constitution to change over time would mean that the law could change without the people's consent. Madison himself expressed the view that such could not be the case; and, indeed, to allow the meaning to change over time would subvert one of the very purposes for adopting a written constitution.'
If they had their way, leftists, one-world-government advocates, and global-villagers, supported by their cohorts in the judiciary and media, would do just what Madison feared: change the Constitution´s meaning without our consent. Evil people would take away our rights and our freedoms. The Constitution Society observed: 'Any power that can be abused will be abused.'
In 1857, Frederick Douglass said: 'Find out just what the people will submit to and you have found out the exact amount of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them; and these will continue until they are resisted with either words or blows, or with both. The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress.'
Samuel Adams said: 'It does not take a majority to prevail ... rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men.'
That minority could be a bunch of influential leftists and their cohorts in the media and judiciary plotting and scheming behind closed doors while we remain otherwise occupied with our families and our lives.
Unless good Americans intervene to protect our Constitution, the America-hating leftists will prevail. They´re already winning in the 9th Circuit's Left Coast jurisdiction. We must become Samuel Adams' 'irate, tireless minority' and fight back against those who would rip up our beloved Constitution. Otherwise, the tyrants will use a 'living and breathing' Constitution to take away our rights and freedoms. All of them.
However, I take issue with this:
In almost two centuries of our nation's existence, no court until then had ever found an explicit right to privacy in our Constitution, especially as legal justification to overturn state laws limiting abortions, but leftist justices had been working toward the right for years.
The absurd Roe v. Wade decision harmed this ocuntry in more ways then one. Because of the phrase "right to privacy" that was used, many, many "conservatives" believe that this was a "right" invented by the court, and we as humans have no right to privacy when it comes to private, consentual, non-violent acts by adults. This has lead to the acceptance of a number of government intrusions. Many concervatives are fooled into going along with the intrusions because "right to privacy" to them is a buzzword for the Roe v. Wade decision and an invented right to kill an unborned child(killing someone is not a private act because violence is used).
Is this part of the Irish anatomy?
This is an awesome quote.
We do not have a "living" Constitution. We have a changeable constitution....changeable by means of a constitutional process of Amendment.
What would you prefer in its place?
A country with more people enlightened by the Word of Truth.
The comparison isn't fair. We know that the word of God is living. It is infinitely rich in how it speaks to each of us on so many levels and only as far as we are capable of receiving it.
But, the comparison has some validity. It seems as if the liberals believe the Constitution is "living" and, those of us purists who don't see it their way are simply incapable or unwilling to let it "speak" to us the way it apparently does to them.
Of course, what makes it ridiculous is that the Constitution's writers are long dead. Thus, they aren't speaking to anyone (as far as I can tell ;-).
Yes but that government would be pretty different. Imagine if Clintons and Gores and the Media were not able to manipulate the masses because they could see the truth and discern right from wrong.
The comparison isn't fair. We know that the word of God is living. It is infinitely rich in how it speaks to each of us on so many levels and only as far as we are capable of receiving it.
Yes we know that. I only make the comparison because I often see reverence for the constitution that I wish more people had for the bible. That reverence seems misplaced because like it or not the constitution is utterly subject to the interpretation of lawyers and judges.
Exactly and that can't be repeated enough. The Roe v. Wade decision makes otherwise smart "conservatives" think differently, i.e., as long as the government can come up with some "good of society" rationalization, no such right exists.
Professor Walt Williams
That says it for me.
Yes, such was the case for a good portion of the country's history, but we still needed the Constitution.
That reverence seems misplaced because like it or not the constitution is utterly subject to the interpretation of lawyers and judges.
What you call a "reverence" is simply a desire to see that the Constitution not be subject to the whims of lawyers and judges - or, shall I say, to see to it that lawyers and judges not bear false witness about said document.
There's nothing sacrilegious about insisting upon the law. Indeed, I believe the Book of Romans (among others) requires it of us.
The constitution, like the Bible, has it's fundamentalists, it's liberals, and it's satanists. Some people hold very close to every word it says, others thing it's really more just a guideline and the third camp is usually in jail.
I find no less tendency for people to want to interpret the Bible to thier own advantage than for them to do likewise with the Constitution.
Sad but true.
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.