It’s important for people of faith, and people who love
liberty, to understand the unseen force driving Seidman’s line of thinking.
Seidman argues that our Constitution was written by
privileged white men of another era whose thoughts and opinions have little to
do with contemporary American life, therefore we should discard their work, and
make up our own as we go.
His argument highlights a basic perspective typical of the secular
left, rooted in Darwinian evolution. The thinking is, “We have evolved to a
higher order, so we no longer need, or are well served by the thoughts of an
inferior generation.”
Seidman and his ilk believe the highest authority is the
contemporary mind of man. Therefore any document, rule or principle must submit
to the interpretive authority of the modern man who reads it, and then It means
whatever he says it means. This was clearly demonstrated by Chief Justice, Charles Evan Hughes, who said the Constitution means whatever the
judge says it means. He couldn’t be more clear.
The conservative mind is a bit more humble, believing that
there is a wisdom in the mind and heart of God that is superior to that of any
man of any era. Our Constitution was an attempt to codify unchanging Biblical
principles to establish a sense of “ordered liberty.” The principles set forth
in the Constitution serve as an objective standard, an anchor keeping us moored
to unchanging Judeo-Christian principles to guarantee continued peace, liberty
and prosperity through generations. Our Constitution is the “how” to secure
those inalienable rights put forward in our Declaration of Independence.
If we break away from the moorings of the Constitution we
become susceptible to the whims of human nature which history has proven is
capable of justifying unimaginable cruelty and even genocide in the name of “progress.”
If the Constitution can mean anything, whatever an “evolved”
man thinks it should mean, then it will mean nothing, and we will regress to
totalitarianism and barbarism already evidenced in baby-killing abortion, and the
acceptance of hedonistic homosexuality. World history indicates that these are
not progressive but rather regressive in human culture.
Do we need a Constitution? Absolutely, or be set adrift and
ultimately condemn future generations to experience man’s inhumanity to man and
social regression.
