Posted on 11/25/2003 10:07:07 AM PST by presidio9
According to Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, making an “all important good impression” in the international community is more essential to the judiciary than upholding Constitutional law. At an October 28 awards dinner in Atlanta, Justice O’Connor was quoted by the Atlanta Journal-Constitution as citing two recent Supreme Court cases that demonstrate the increased willingness of U.S. courts to take international opinion and law into account in their decisions.
This is nothing new for those who’ve kept up with the antics of our modern day Supreme Court. More and more our courts are stepping away from the Constitution and towards laws that have absolutely no basis in American principles. But where did it all begin?
For the last century the courts have followed this trend: they’ve steadily moved away from a Constitution based on law, toward a Constitution based on relativism. The purpose of this “living Constitution” -- as some have pegged it -- isn’t to improve upon the old one, as some like Justice O’Connor might claim, but to abolish it altogether.
Movement towards the living Constitution isn’t a recent phenomenon. Its roots can be traced back to the late 19th century when certain Supreme Court justices began applying Darwin’s premise of evolution to jurisprudence. This philosophy was pegged as positivism. Its basic tenants declared that since man evolved, his laws must evolve as well. Under positivism, judges were to guide both the evolution of law and the Constitution. Consequently, the views of the Founding Fathers were disregarded as hampering the evolution of society. Every philosophy of law had to be the latest and greatest or else it was junked.
An early subscriber to positivism was Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. Holmes was appointed to the Supreme Court in 1902. During his three decades on the Court he argued extensively that decisions should be based upon the “felt necessities of the time” and the “prevalent moral and political theories” instead of natural law and its absolute standards. Holmes claimed that, “[T]he justification of a law for us cannot be found in the fact that our fathers always have followed it. It must be found in some help which the law brings toward reaching a social end.”
Positivism quickly spread as the 19th century spilled into the 20th. Social evolution, relativistic thinking, and the new “positivistic” view of law were not only making serious inroads among Supreme Court justices, but in academia as well. John Dewey, signer of the 1933 Humanist Manifesto I, wrote in 1927: “The belief in political fixity, of the sanctity of some form of state consecrated by the efforts of our fathers and hallowed by tradition, is one of the stumbling-blocks in the way of orderly and directed change.”
Before long, a small but influential set of Supreme Court justices were routinely disregarding any concept of absolute rights and wrongs. Benjamin Cardozo, appointed to the Supreme Court in 1932, claimed, “If there is any law which is back of the sovereignty of the state, and superior thereto, it is not law in such a sense as to concern the judge or lawyer, however much it concerns the statesman or the moralist.” Charles Evans Hughes, the Supreme Court’s Chief Justice from 1930 to 1941, held a similar view: “We are under a Constitution, but the Constitution is what the judges say it is.”
Those are incredible statements considering the plethora of judicial activism our nation has witnessed lately. According to Cardozo, judges and justices should believe no law exists higher than that of the state. If such law does exist, it should only concern politicians or religious instructors. That philosophy is frightening to say the least. But it exists.
Positivism had gained considerable ground by the mid 20th century. The change from absolute to relativistic thinking was apparent by 1953, when Earl Warren became Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. Ten years later prayer was removed from public schools. A decade after that abortion on demand was legalized. Positivism has definitely done its intended work.
Thankfully, our nation is capable of moving away from this dangerous philosophy. If we return to a system by which “we the people” conduct social corrections as needed (through elections and amendments to the Constitution), and away from a system by which unelected judges are virtually unaccountable to the people, then we’ll see justice truly return to the judiciary. But this task will not be easy. Positivism has made such inroads into the fabric of our nation that it will take serious action to reverse.
The living Constitution comes down to this: It fails to reflect the so-called evolving values of our nation, but establishes an agenda that is deeply steeped in relativism and social Darwinism. Americans overwhelmingly support the Constitution. Why? Because it protects their rights. The living Constitution does not. Since it’s not based on the foundational principles of America -- principles largely based on Christianity -- it can only lead to usurpation of freedom.
Does this border on an impeachable offense? As Zell would say, "it sure looks like it's first cousin". These are the words of a tyrant and a traitor. Yes, I said TRAITOR! Our Constitution was written by the People, and for the People. That would be the People of these here United States of America. I could care less what the euro-wienies want or think. If they want our kind of freedom and our kind of system then fight for it, like we did. These words (from O'Conner) are tripe from an elitist that feels that her opinion over rides the written law of this land. I will not except that and neither should the American People. If this is the way she views her job, she should be impeached... immediately!
If we don't stop this tyrany of the judiciary we are doomed to be slaves of the state, just like the RATS want us to be. Once the judiciary gets our guns they pretty much have us by the short and curlies. This woman will be making THAT decision. Does that fact scare the everloving poop out of you? It should!
The solution to this problem lies in a Constitutional Amendment. In that, Federal Judges (regardless of position) are appointed in the same manner as we have now with the exception of their terms. Their terms should be no more than 1, that is ONE, 8 year term and then they are replaced. They still don't have to run for the job and they still have their collective judicial impartiallity, but only for 8 years. I figure that would limit the damage that they could do to the Constitution and to our rights. Of course I would perfer a 6 year term but that would be up to the people writing the amendment and the arrogance of the judiciary thus far (in that case the terms should be 6 month...MAX). Oh yea, and break up the 9th "Circus" into a hundred parts. This life long appointment horse manure has cost this Republic way too much and it's time to stop it. The Constitution guarantees us the amendment process, it's high time we started this movement. I'm sick and tired of these elitist a#$holes infringing on MY Constitution and MY rights. They act like it's their grace that grants me my rights. Well listen up judges.....GOD gave me those rights and the Constitution was written to forbid YOU from taking them away.
The federal courts have become inquisitions and history tells us that inquisitions fall with a terrible thud. Ask the Spanish, ask the French. They did it with violence we can do it with a Constitutional Amendment. Afterall, we are a peaceful people, till you piss us off! Are we waiting for the Supreme Court to declare the Constitution, unconstitutional? Let's get cracking!
Tear this idea down with logic, flame me, but give me a better idea, if you have one. I've thought this through and I think it's feasable, especially in the light of what is happening in the Senate now.
It's living all right; every few years it morphs into something different, something having less and less in common with the original.
The words don't change; only the "understanding" does. Thus, you (of all people) should understand why they call it a "living" Constitution.
Eye yam today's "useless eater"!!! Wudaya gunna call me tomorrow??? ;-))
.
He could, but if he did he would not be the God of Judeo-Christianity, nor the God of the founders (specifically, the authors of the Declaration believed in a God who not only endows His creation with rights, but also provides Divine Providence as well as acting as Supreme Judge of the world; both latter concepts being incompatible with the "non-intervening" viewpoint).
Regarding Federalist #42: It is always good to have occasion to read a Federalist Paper, that has been referred to during the day, from end to end. I usually smile and learn somthing as well and this was no exception
Federalist #42 is among my favorites; the rational passion displayed in discussing the issue demonstrated the views of the founders on the issue of slavery better than any treatise since. I wish it were required reading of every high school student; if the views of the founders on the subject were more widely known a lot of the revisionist history of the modern age (deconstruction of the founders' principles of government in an attempt to reduce their moral stature) would receive the ridicule it so richly deserves. While certainly not perfect on the issue, at least the founders demonstrated the moral courage to clearly label the ethical flaws of their own culture, and establish policies that they hoped would ultimately abolish those injustices.
It is you who has your definitions reversed sir. You and a who lot of other people. When we say the bible is living we are saying that it is not changing with us but that is perfectly applicable to all times. This is a compliment. Why is it not understood the same way when we discuss the constitution. If it really were living then it would actually apply to today, which it often seems not to do.
Does the fault lie in the words, or the understanding?
Render unto God what is God's, and unto Ceasar what is Ceasar's. The revolt against the Crown and the Church of England should demonstrate the folly of trying to have it both ways, IMHO.
Since the bible has no fault but there is limitless lack of understanding and outright purposeful misuse, I certainly can't entirely blame the lack of divine inspiration of the constitution for its misuse.
I think not, sir. Perhaps you failed to see my point.
When we say the bible is living we are saying that it is not changing with us but that is perfectly applicable to all times. This is a compliment.
Of course. However, one aspect of the living Word of God is that a man can read it a sixty-second time and have something totally new revealed to him, something which he missed the previous sixty-one times. The "living" Constitution takes that concept and makes it say something different than what it actually says.
When applied in this way, it's a perverted sort of "living"; whereas the Bible is living in the sense that the Holy Spirit can and does gradually reveal truths contained in it, people who try to make the Constitution do the same thing are dealing in lies. Thus, calling it a "living" Constitution is a slam at those who believe it to be, precisely because they have the audacity to present it in that way.
Fair enough?
I bought two books to help further my understanding of Madison:
1) James Madison: A Biography by Ralph Ketcham (1971 University Press of Virginia)
2) James Madison and The American Nation 1751-1836 An Encyclopedia (1994 Simon and Schuster)
Comments and excerpts from the Ketcham biography follow:
Chapter 3 is titled The College of New Jersey at Princeton and details Madison’s experience there. After earning his law degree, with an emphasis in international law, “Madison stayed there for six months following his graduation to read with Witherspoon” (page 38). I have come to learn that he studied Hebrew and ethics at that time; he did not earn any subsequent degrees except an honorary Doctor of Laws in 1787. Page 38 also contains a good description of Witherspoon. He suggested that local Presbyterian congregations retain the preponderance of power over the church hierarchy. By extension, Witherspoon’s suggestion is that decentralization might be preferred in the affairs of the state as well. Witherspoon, an emigrant from Scotland, broke with Scottish Enlightenment writer David Hume, whom he called the “infidel writer.” Witherspoon preferred “orthodox Christianity, industry and sobriety. The author comments on the intellectual milieu of the second half of the 18th century by suggesting:
“The other foundation stone of learning in Madison’s day, and of his education, was the Christian tradition. Down through his graduation from college, every one of Madison’s teachers, as far as we know, was either a clergyman, or a devoutly orthodox Christian Layman. In fact, so pervasive was Christian influence, especially in rearing children, that an education under other than Christian auspices was virtually unknown. Even the technically nonsectarian College of Philadelphia founded by Franklin gave its students training in Christian morality and was presided over by a zealous Anglican Minister. Though much of the Christian aspect of Madison’s schooling was relatively perfunctory and he seems never to have been an ardent believer himself, he nonetheless year after year undertook his studies from a Christian viewpoint. Furthermore, he never took an antireligious or even an anti-Christian stance, and he retained the respect and admiration of the devoutly orthodox young men with whom he studied at Princeton. It seems clear that he neither embraced fervently, nor rejected utterly the Christian base of his education. He accepted its tenets generally and formed his outlook of life within its worldview” (pages 46-7).
Although the author qualifies Madison’s theology as a believer, he qualifies it. I define Christians as those who accept Jesus Christ as their lord and savior and that he represents an *exclusive* path to salvation. (I welcome comments on this). This passage indicates that Christianity was pervasive in the institutions of higher learning around the time of the War for Independence.
My encyclopedia is an excellent resource. I will not quote at length from it, but it echoes many of Ketcham’s sentiments, in fact he even helped edit the volume.
An architectural note on Montpelier: There is what is called a Greek (pre-Christian) temple on the grounds. It is a dome, perhaps 16 feet across with eight roman Doric columns around its circumference. It suggests the importance of Greek political thought and reflects the civic architecture of ancient Greece. Why would Madison build a Greek temple instead of a Christian temple if he were a Christian? Perhaps his long relationship with Jefferson influenced his views on theology over time. Where did Madison attend service in DC? Infant baptism and adolescent confirmation do not necessarily make one a Christian. Perhaps the broad brush of deism is overstated by the commie/socialist/statist/extortionist secular humanists that have captured the (most evil) government schools or youth indoctrination centers. This has been a good learning experience. Now, I am onto Jefferson’s views on theology, but that will have to wait for another thread.
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.