- Friday, 27 April 2012 07:11
- Written by Mark Kreslins
The "living Constitution" crowd is alive and well in our public schools....if you're a parent, you should be well aware of this.
This past week, Joshua, myself and Scott have been engaging in a debate of sorts with people in our local community, including teachers in our local school. Most of these folks firmly believe in the "living Constitution" theory even though they are unable to present a shred of factual evidence this was the intent of the Framers and Ratifiers. Some seem to believe, based on anecdotal stories of past Presidents, - the very men who developed the Constitution with a VERY clear desire to limit the general government - that these men experience a sort of spell that comes over them and they have no choice but to deny the authority of the Constitution, violate it, and almost immediately become "living constitutionalists."
While Framers who went on to become President did indeed violate their oath and break their "sacred honor," is indeed a historical fact...I cannot understand how this buttresses the case of the living constitutionalists crowd. Oh, sure, it enables them to say; "see, see, John Adams didn't follow the Constitution...there, that proves that even the Framers believed in the living Constitution!" Hardly, I respond! It only proves they were willing to violate the Rule of Law and their oath. Yet the living constitution crowd anchors their entire argument in the violations of past presidents and Congresses. How odd!Next, attempting to overcome factual evidence deficit regarding the intent of the Founders, Framers and Ratifiers, the living constitution crowd move on to additional anecdotal stories of "men of good will" as if to say; "c'mon Mark, Joshua and Scott, will you three PLEASE grow up! These past President's and Congressman we're all "men of good will" who embraced the noble Machiavellian idea of pragmatism and had to violate the Rule of Law and their oath for the good of the country. Get with it you guys!" Sounds a little like a recent past president who stated, with a straight face: "I had to abandon free markets in order to save free markets."
The facts are clear and worthy of indictment:
Indictment #1 - We do not have a federal government as the Framers intended, we have a national government that acts arbitrarily and without restraint. It "rules" the people without their consent and acts to oppress free people whenever it chooses to do so.
Indictment #2 - The 9th and 10th Amendment have been rendered meaningless by the national government and the living constitution supporters. This has resulted in the people of the seperate States losing their liberties. For example, where in the Constitution does a national government agency have the delegated authority to force a grandmother in a wheelchair to remove her undergarments before entering a plane? The "reserved" powers under the 9th and 10th Amendments were intended to stop a national government from acts like these. But, they've been relegated to a mere "truism" when this deceptive theory is anything but true. In fact. its a fraud and a deception perpetratied on the people in order to get them to surrender their inalienable rights.
Lastly, there is a right and wrong way to understand the Constitution and the Constitutionalist and "living Constitution points of view are not equally valid. One leads to shackles and one leads to freedom; I'll let you guess which is which!
In the end, I have yet to read one properly cited argument that the Founders, Framers or Ratifiers intended the Constitution to be a "living" document. The "living" concept ultimately leads to arbitrary power and living constitutionalists can come to no other conclusion...they are by definition supporters of arbitrary power which is in no way anchored in the Constitution, the Rule of Law, Inalienable Rights, nor enumerated powers. All of which are major doctrines of our founding. What the "living constitution" supporters are left with are fancy and high-minded words like "living." They can find no defense for their position in the founding documents. There is no Article of the Constitution that can be pointed to in order to support the living constitution position. Yet as a Constitutionalist, I can point to numerous sections.