This will be my next Kindle purchase:
Posted on 01/09/2011 7:26:54 AM PST by Kaslin
Do all those who seem to be so enamored of a so-called “Living Constitution” really want the document to live—or are they actually trying to kill it off as a relevant part of our national life?
It is hard to actually believe that something as seemingly and prototypically American as a public reading of the U.S. Constitution by people recently sworn to uphold it could be at all controversial. For that matter, it is even harder to believe that such an exercise should become the subject for ridicule on the part of some whose very practiced free speech is ultimately protected by what Madison and company crafted and adopted back in 1787. That the venerable document remains the oldest written Constitution in use by any nation on the planet, is but one testament to its significance and enduring relevance.
But to hear the media buzz in the aftermath of the reading by members of the House of Representatives from both political parties, it is clear that some on the left simply don’t get it. And stepping forward as the spokesperson for the mockers is Rachel Maddow, host of her own weeknight show on MSNBC.
Seizing on the fact that the reading this past Thursday left out the parts of the Constitution that were later repudiated and revised, Maddow insisted that they should have been left in to highlight that there are flaws in the supreme law of our land, what she called “dumb and evil stuff.” She seems to miss the point that the Constitution itself includes provisions for fixing obvious errors.
Maddow reminded her listeners the other night that “the constitution is not the ten commandments,” though one wonders how seriously Rachel actually takes Mosaic Law, as well. She is a bright and articulate broadcaster, well educated, that process even including a doctorate from Oxford University (Rhodes scholar), but in the case of the Constitution her liberal bias generates more heat than her intellect can handle. She argues that when it comes to the Constitution of the United States:
"You can handle that truth in one of two ways. You could acknowledge that the Constitution has had really crazy stuff in it from time to time, use that as a teaching moment. The Constitution is a living document that has changed over time in ways both bad and good as the country has gotten older. Or you can be a Constitutional fundamentalist and ignore the fact that there has been bad stuff in it over time."
This is the debate equivalent of “heads, I win—tails, you lose.” And it reveals a thinly-veiled sense of contempt for the Constitution.
The idea that the Constitution has changed over the years “in ways both good and bad” is itself flawed. As evidence of the “bad,” she predictably cites the 18th Amendment, the one initiating Prohibition in the nation. Sadly, and with apparent obliviousness, she tasked Ted Williams, the Andy Warhol Man-Of-The-Hour-With-The-Golden-Voice to read it on her show as part of his current media tour. Never mind that the image of a man whose life has been hitherto destroyed by alcohol and other substances, most of which remain “prohibited” thankfully, reading words about a well-meaning effort to assuage the scourge of substance abuse, was awkward to say the least.
The salient point is that the 18th amendment, which had wide political support in the first decades of the 20th century was eventually repealed. Yet, she puts it front and center as proof that the Constitution can’t be taken all that seriously.
Really?
The history of the Prohibition movement is that it was largely driven by the political movement in this country known as Progressivism. In fact, it was one of its most prominent and unifying ideas, closely related to the burgeoning women’s suffrage movement. Arguably, a case can be made that the first impact women made on the American political landscape while en route to the right to vote was in the battle against booze. The history of the Prohibition movement cannot be told without recounting the role of the Women’s Christian Temperance Union (WCTU).
So it is ironic that the part of the Constitution Rachel Maddow et al uses to “prove” its fallible irrelevance today was actually crucial to the thinking of a very liberal movement it its day. In fact, feminists today owe a debt of gratitude to the brave women who sought, via a war on liquor, to change their world.
And if Prohibition seems now in hindsight to be absurd and unworkable (as it indeed turned out to be), it should be considered that the current “Progressive” wars on things such as smoking and obesity as part of the national healthcare discussion are not all that far removed from the mindset that brought us Prohibition. The 18th amendment was repealed, but it is still referred to by many as a “noble experiment.” And its failure highlights the flaws of all big government efforts to micro-manage personal lives.
The presence of an 18th amendment in the Constitution is not evidence of “bad stuff.” Rather, it is evidence of what can happen when the people decide to deliberate about an idea over decades, only to find that all their best hopes and efforts don’t turn out to be practical. And the 21st amendment to the Constitution, the one repealing the 18th amendment, is evidence that our system works very well.
But the Rachel Maddow’s of the world have no patience for process. Their talk of a Living Constitution does not involve the idea of lengthy national debate and structured deliberation. Quite the contrary, were Prohibition the law of the land today, they would ignore the remedy of a new Constitutional amendment and opt instead for various legal maneuvers rendering the wording in the Constitution itself moot.
In other words, in pursuit of a Living Constitution, what they really seek is its effective death as a document to be taken seriously.
When someone tells you the Consitution is a “living document” what they are really saying is that it is dead.
In passing the gavel to Speaker Boehner, Pelosi spoke of our Constitution as if she truly revered it when she in fact has trashed that document repeatedly.
The United States Constitution covers a larger 'area' than it originally did but with the same meaning as the first. It is our guiding laws, not some paper that is constantly argued in class rooms or court rooms. It means what it says. Just as the Bible's Ten Commandments, like them or not, mean what they say........Law and the Word of God from that instrument is America's great achievement for freemen.
...or that they want it dead.
They are saying that they dislike the rule of law, they want the rule of men. These idiots always think that they will be the people in charge of such an administration.
That’s an easy one to answer! The Libtards and Communists want to Destroy Our American Constitution! Just as Obozo tried to Destroy the Honduran Constitution and the Kenyan Constitution! Thankfully, he was Unsuccessful in each case........
This will be my next Kindle purchase:
someone has to explain it. How does it appear that judges have any kind of power over the Constitution in the first place. It makes no sense. Can someone explain?
re: “Maddow reminded her listeners the other night that “the constitution is not the ten commandments,” though one wonders how seriously Rachel actually takes Mosaic Law, as well.”
Exactly - since liberals have very little, if any, respect for the Bible - why would they have it for our Constitution? Even those liberals who have some regard for the Bible don’t believe it to be taken seriously enough to hold any kind of moral or theological standards that we must actually live by - certainly not standards that we can “impose” on anyone else.
Our Constitution is held with even less esteem by liberals. Since they don’t really believe in the universal moral standards upon with the Constitution is established, then why not change it at whim? From their point of view, the Constitution’s precepts are “man-made, changeable,” and subject to a wide variety of interpretations and opinions because there is no such thing as transcendant moral absolutes. In other words, since right and wrong are subject to opinion, so is the Constitution.
someone has to explain it. How does it appear that judges have any kind of power over the Constitution in the first place. It makes no sense. Can someone explain?
someone has to explain it. How does it appear that judges have any kind of power over the Constitution in the first place. It makes no sense. Can someone explain?
Our Constitution: the New “Inconvenient Truth”
They advocate the same old and tired ideas which have led to tyranny and oppression in every country where they have practiced.
For an excellent discussion of the history of the "living constitution" school and its dangers to liberty, visit this web site and click on the essay entitled, "Do We Have A Living Constitution?" by Dr. Walter Berns. The essay originally appeared in National Forum, The Phi Kappa Phi Journal, Falll 1984, and then was published in "Our Ageless Constitution," in 1987.
Dr. Berns documents how "living constitution" ideologues actually distorted the words of Justice John Marshall in his advice in McCulloch v. Maryland (1819) in order to justify what Berns calls their "erroneous views." Berns says, "Marshall's and the Founders' concern was not to keep the Constitution in tune with the times but, rather, to keep the times to the extent possible, in tune with the Constitution. And that is why the Framers assigned to the judiciary the task of protecting the Constitutiion as written."
Marshall made that point clear in Marbury when he wrote:
"That the people have an original right to establish, for their future government, such principles as, in their opinion, shall most conduce to their own happiness, is the basis on which the whole American fabric has been erected. The exercise of this original right is a very great exertion; nor can it, nor ought it, to be frequently repeated. The principles, therefore, so established, are deemed fundamental: and as the authority from which they proceed is supreme, and can seldom act, they are designed to be permanent."
A reading of Berns' entire essay explains and, at the same time, demolishes the false premise of the "living constitution" promoters.
The Constitution contains within itself the only valid means for amendment or change by what Justice Story called "its only KEEPERS," "We, the People."
"Until the people have, by some solemn and authoritative act, annulled or changed the established form, it is binding upon them collectively, as well as individually; and no presumption or even knowledge of their sentiments, can warrant their representatives [the executive, judiciary, or legislature]; in a departure from it prior to such an act." - Alexander Hamilton
Here’s some mental chewing gum to pass around the classroom:
We COULD repeal the Constitution if desired. If Congress wanted to throw the old parchment onto the scrap heap of history, it would require a coup but it could (theoretically) be done. Stranger things have happened in this wacky world.
But what then? Where would we be without our Constitution?
The states would no longer be united, leaving us with 50 independent state (plus territorial) governments. The states would become much more forceful in their respective laws and each would reinvigorate its militia to provide for its security, making for some very interesting news stories.
However, the states would need, and therefore seek out, some framework for peaceful co-existence and common defense. Some pact between the many neighbors would be required, so at least some form of Constitution would be necessary. (Personally I don’t believe any person or group could write a better pact than the one we already have.)
Instead, try this little exercise. Read a few lines of the Constitution — any Article or Amendment that you wish — and listen to the beautifully plain language and common-sense construction of the document. The Constitution simply says what it means and means exactly what it says.
Anybody who buys that “living document” crap is a traitor. The Constitution says what it says and that settles it. Millions of us swore a sacred oath to support and defend the Constitution, as written and amended, and that is exactly what we intend to do.
Hope my post above is helpful, bioqubit.
‘Living’ has different meaning AND different intentions for different people. It is easy today to discern those who want to abide by the Constitution and those who want to act outside the Constitution. These are related to if you believe our Nation is great by It’s uniquness or if you believe there is another form of government which is better. To me when we speak of a ‘living’ Constitution I’m reminded of a’living’ Ten Commandments. Both are timeless as written.
‘Living’ has different meaning AND different intentions for different people. It is easy today to discern those who want to abide by the Constitution and those who want to act outside the Constitution. These are related to if you believe our Nation is great by It’s uniquness or if you believe there is another form of government which is better. To me when we speak of a ‘living’ Constitution I’m reminded of a’living’ Ten Commandments. Both are timeless as written.
"Why should judicial precedent bind the nation if the Constitution itself does not?"
If judges ignore the Supreme Law of the Land, why are we obligated to obey them?
"That the American Constitution is long-lived, has enduring qualities, and was intended for the ages cannot be doubted. That it was founded on enduring principles, and that it was based on the authority of a people who are sovereign has been attested to by many of its leaders. That it can be changed when, and if, the people ordain such change is a part of its own provisions. For these reasons, it can be said to be a "Living Constitution" - but let that not be claimed by those who would use the language to subvert the structure."
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.