The Constitution Is Not a Living Document; But It May Well Be A Dying One
Posted on 12. Oct, 2009 by James in American Politics
Our Presidents and the Congress swear to defend it. Men and women have died to preserve it. Groups as diametrically opposed as the ACLU and NRA defend the rights enumerated in it. So why do average Americans seem so indifferent toward the Constitution?
Make no mistake that there are those without who wish to destroy our Constitution and those within who profit from its demise. The only thing left to impede their success is an apathetic American public. Americans should demand that Congress make a simple resolution and reaffirm their commitment to our Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and particularly the separation of powers. It would be interesting for the American people to see who would vote against such a resolution.
The framers of the Constitution were meticulous in structuring a document that limits the power of central government. They set forth balanced measures to impede government growth and over-regulation. They also provided a method that allows changing societal values to be considered over time. They knew, however, that the nature of government was to grow and limit individual rights for the perceived good of the collective. To counter this, they made it difficult to change the law of the land so that only the most imperative changes would be allowed.
A great example of government following the proper channel for Constitutional changes can be found in the 14th and 15th Amendments, which ended slavery and ensured voting rights regardless of race. This was the Constitution at work as the framers intended. These Amendments corrected a grievous omission, the inclusion of which was politically unattainable in 1791 but reflected societal changes by the 1860’s.
We as a society have let each generation of leaders whittle away at the core values of the Constitution through overreaching laws, executive orders, judicial legislation, and the concept of a “living document.” These distortions to the Constitution were slow and almost imperceptible to the electorate; most seemed to make sense. Now, however, the changes are coming fast. All three branches of government, consciously or not, are working to distort the document that has kept the American Dream alive for over 200 years.
The “living document” concept is a 20th Century invention of progressives and constructionists that places in jeopardy the very core of American values. Justice Scalia commented in a speech in 2005, “The Constitution is not a living organism… it is a legal document, and like all legal documents, it says some things and doesn’t say others.” The Founding Fathers of this country did not consider their words to be a living, breathing document, but rather a set of universal and timeless truths that would allow free men and free women to attain economic, spiritual, and intellectual attainment well beyond the accepted norm of the time. The Framers made explicit that Congress and the States alone have the power to amend the Constitution. Justices exist to interpret the Constitution, not to enforce societal changes.
The 10th Amendment reserves all powers not enumerated in the Constitution for the states and the people. The Constitution does not grant carte blanche to our legislators under the guise of the health and welfare clause. If it is not in the Constitution, it should not be on the federal docket, but rather in a state court. And, as in the case of civil rights, if the states are not adequately representing the interests of their people, the federal government can affect the changes that will put the appropriate arguments in front of the court. Social engineering belongs to the people and not to any of the three branches of federal government.
Obama, cheered on by a willing Congress and a gushing media, appointed yet another judicial activist to our highest court. Judicial activism is wholly un-American and a threat to our very sovereignty. The two sole considerations for court interpretation have long been the wording of the Constitution itself and the intent of the Founding Fathers. In no other set of laws do we interpret beyond the wording of particular statutes. Yet increasingly, court opinions cite foreign statutes and international law as a basis for interpretation. We have in power a group of people who, though sworn to protect it, look at our Constitution as being subordinate to laws created by international governing bodies. America is at a crossroads and the direction of the country will be decided by a few court appointments and the 2010 midterm elections.
All of this is happening at a time when we have lost the checks and balances in the government. And the media, the heralded fourth estate, rather than questioning the political establishment, fawns over a charismatic leader and obsesses over celebrity scandals and sensationalized murder trials. The White House press corps looks more like a group of preteens at a Jonas Brothers concert than a respected body of journalists.
The genius of America is not and has never been our grand social planning or our strong central government. The strength of our nation does, however, come from the instrument that has held that government in check for over 200 years and allowed innovation and individuality to create something great.
How did we get here? Why have we as a population surrendered our rights to a group of career politicians and a handful of politically appointed judges?
We asked the government to take the burden of our personal responsibility, and along with that responsibility we are giving up our freedom. The responsibility of our failure comes with it the fruits of our success. More so than any other people on Earth, Americans, through a collective spirit of individual responsibility, have lifted themselves and their communities to unprecedented heights of economic, social, and scientific achievement. This is a system that the world has envied but has never been able to fully duplicate. Yet somewhere in the last few decades, Americans decided that their personal responsibility belonged in the hands of the federal government. This is power that cannot be taken away; it can only be given away.
Our Constitution firmly placed power in the hands of the people, secondarily in the hands of the local and state governments, then finally in the hands of the House of Representatives. If this pyramid seems to have turned upside down and you feel like you have lost the power to control your own destiny; if you want to take back the responsibility for your own failures and successes, then this is the time to stand-up for the Constitution and to make your voice heard.
It seems like a long way off, but as the country approaches the next election, consider how your elected officials view the Constitution that they swore to defend, and vote accordingly. Before it becomes perverted beyond recognition, let us see a resolution in Congress reaffirming the Constitution as the supreme law of the land. We need to agree that the Constitution is a good thing and stop allowing our elected officials and appointed judges manipulate it as tool of personal and party power.
Our founders were wise who knew the danger of unbridled power in a central government. That is why they established a federal government with specific and very restricted power and left the rest to the states and the people of each state. Franklin Roosevelt began the eroding away of those restrictions and the process has continued since. Barack Obama wants to create an authoritarian federal government with unbridled power.
James, this is a very excellent article, in that it addresses the serious issue of subjecting our Constitution to the whims of international law. In particular, the L.O.S.T. Treaty comes to mind, as does then U.N.’s International Rights of a Child. These are just a few of many troubling international agreements, that if signed on to, would drastically limit our nation’s sovereignty and leave the American populace quite vulnerable. Could Americans face criminal trials in foreign tribunals for alleged crimes committed in international agreement? This is a very slippery slope indeed, and putting ourselves in a position to answer to other countries value systems is nothing our founders would have wanted. I dare say its time for another revolution.
Thanks for the comment. We are not only introducing foreign statutes, but as you mentions handing over large portions of our government over to international bodies such as the Laws of the seas, banking regs, and soon I fear energy policy.