DO WE NEED THE CONSTITUTION?

There has been much talk lately about whether we even need a Constitution or whether the Constitution just “gets in the way of progress” as posited by Georgetown Law Professor, Michael Seidman, in his essay recently published by the New York Times called “Let’s Give Up on the Constitution.”

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.

President Obama's Challenge to the Supreme Court

This past week commentators have been talking about President Obama’s challenge to the U.S. Supreme Court. They were speculating on why he would make such patently false statements about the function and role of the High Court, particularly since he taught Constitutional Law at Harvard. The question seemed to be,

“Is he really that ignorant of the role of the Supreme Court, or was he just trying to isolate them as a target for his re-election campaign?”

I believe the answer is neither.

You see, his remarks were totally consistent with his liberal and progressive view of a “Living Constitution.” This was revealed when he spoke of the social consequences that would make striking down the law unacceptable. In other words, in his mind the highest authority was not the original intent of the authors of the Constitution but rather the presumed outcomes to meet the needs of society.

That was the established goal; the Constitution would have to conform to meet those needs, so the Supreme Court would have to rule in favor of the law and the interpretation of the Constitution would just have to conform. You see, President Obama’s idea of Constitutional Law subscribes to the ideology of Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes who said in a speech in 1907,

“we are under a Constitution, but the Constitution is what the judges say it is...”

That is the ideology of a tyrant, one who sees himself to be intellectually superior to our founding fathers, and by virtue of his “evolved” intelligence he truly believes he knows better than those who have gone before.

No, President Obama didn’t “mis-speak.” He knew exactly what he was saying, and to him it made perfectly good sense. Given another four years to “rule,” and we may lose the last of those stable Constitutional principles that have preserved us a nation.

PURGE 2010!

Two events occurred today that provide a window into the hearts and minds of those who are presently in power:

First, the President’s Chief of Staff, Rahm Emanuel was reported to be preparing to leave the White House to enter the Mayoral race in Chicago, a reportedly long-time personal ambition of his.

Secondly, Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, chose to adjourn Congress in order for members to go home early to campaign for re-election in November, instead of remaining in Washington to vote on extending the Bush tax cuts beyond 2010.

These two reports reveal character traits of people who clearly act out of personal ambition over the good of the country. Unfortunately, this character trait has become too common place, and I have found that it speaks even to the definition of a modern liberal.

This next election must not be a contest between Democrats and Republicans, but rather it will be a contest between liberals and conservatives, between those who put personal ambition above the good of the country, and those who are motivated by a higher calling.

Let there be a purge in November. Let those who would rule others motivated by personal ambition and power lust, be replaced by others who will serve their nation because of a sense of calling and an awareness of their accountability to God. Let’s call it “Purge 2010!”

The Method is Everything Mr. President.

Lately, I’ve been hearing the President and his ilk repeat the same talking points that the method wasn’t important when answering questions about the congressional chicanery going on to pass the health bill.

What is important, they said, was that the health bill was passed, by whatever means is necessary. This gives us yet one more window into the mind of the liberal ideology setting us up for totalitarian tyranny.

The liberal mindset demonstrated by Obama, Pelosi and Reid suggests that the Constitution and written rules are what they call “living documents” and are subordinate to the intellect and the will of the "enlightened ones" who now hold power because of their intellectual superiority. After all, they have evolved to a much higher degree than the primitive and ignorant white dead men who founded this nation hundreds of years ago.

The danger here is that the Constitution which provided peace, prosperity and stability like no other nation has ever known will lose its power, and we will become like the other nations of the world at best.

America is unique because of our systems our institutions, and yes, even our methods as set forth in our founding documents. We are a nation of laws, not of human whim, no matter how enlightened one may think he is. If we ever cease to be governed by laws we will be ruled by men –evil men. The method is everything, Mr. President.