Intelligent Design

Will Progressives Succeed in Hollowing Out the Constitution?

Spread the love

Justice Scalia believed the old Soviet Constitution was, in a sense, far superior to the United States’ Constitution.  No really.  He once said:

Our Constitution isn’t the best, if you judge it by its guarantees.  Frankly, the old Soviet constitution was better, and it was full of all kinds of grand guarantees . . . For example, ‘Citizens are guaranteed inviolability of the person . . . Citizens are guaranteed inviolability of the home’ . . . But this Soviet constitution was just a piece of paper . . . A bill of rights has value only if the main articles of the constitution truly constitute the organs of government – establish a structure that will preserve liberties against the ineradicable human lust for power.

I agree entirely.  Judged by its written guaranties of liberty, the Soviet Constitution was wonderful.  But we all know the Soviet Union was not a free country. If you crossed the wrong government official, said the wrong thing, practiced religion, or held the wrong ideas, you got a trip to the Gulag, if not a bullet to the head.

Why is the United States Constitution operationally far superior to the Soviet Constitution which, on paper, guarantied far greater liberties?  In his column yesterday, Jonah Goldberg put his finger on the answer when he wrote, “The Constitution’s only binding power is the reverence we hold for it.”

In the Soviet Union everyone knew the constitution was a cynical put up job.  Everyone knew that in practice government officials could ignore its guaranties with impunity.  Everyone knew that when the words on the paper stood in the way of what those in power desired, it was the words on the paper, not the desires of the powerful, that would inevitably give way.

Conversely, in the United States the people have, for the most part, revered the principles of liberty embodied in the Constitution.  The American people have treated the Constitution not as merely words on a page, but as a real guaranty of liberty with truly binding force.  There have, of course, been exceptions, and many had to wait as we worked out the implications of our ideals.  But those exceptions were just that – variances from the general rule.  It really is the case that the United States is, as Lincoln said, a nation conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.

But I often ask myself how much longer this experiment in liberty will last.  Lincoln understood the Civil War was a test of whether the United States, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure.  The forces of liberty prevailed then, but now, over 150 years later, we are engaged in a new civil war, an existential fight for the very soul of the country.

The new Civil War is not being waged with guns and bombs.  It is being waged with an all-pervading cynicism that threatens to hollow out the Constitution and leave it a dried out husk.  The difference between the Soviet Constitution and the United States Constitution lies entirely in the American people’s belief that the latter has real meaning and that everyone – from the lowliest village official to the President himself – is bound to respect and give actual force to its provisions.  But what happens when those controlling our highest institutions no longer believe this?  What happens when reverence for the ideas embedded  in the Constitution gives way to cynical grasping for power?

Nowhere is this choice more stark than when a judge rules in a case.  If a judge is unable to set his politics aside, he has undermined the very foundations of our constitutional order.  Judge Bork put it this way:

The democratic integrity of law [] depends entirely upon the degree to which its processes are legitimate.  A judge who announces a decision must be able to demonstrate that he began from recognized legal principles and reasoned in an intellectually coherent and politically neutral way to his result.  Those who would politicize the law offer the public, and the judiciary, the temptation of results without regard to democratic legitimacy.

Contrast Judge Bork’s approach to law to William Brennan’s as Adam Winkler, a constitutional law professor at UCLA, describes it:

Brennan used to ask his new law clerks what the most important rule in constitutional law was. They would ponder the question and respond, “freedom of speech,” “separation church and state,” or “separation of powers.” No, Brennan would respond with a wry smile. And then he would hold out one hand with his fingers outstretched. “Five,” he would say. A justice needs five votes to make a majority on the nine-member court. With five votes, a justice could do anything.

The capital “C” cynicism implicit in Brennan’s five-finger approach to constitutional law is breathtaking.  Brennan cared not one whit for the text, structure or history of the Constitution.  To him, the text was not binding law, but a bothersome inconvenience to be circumvented.  What separates Brennan’s approach to the United States Constitution from Joseph Stalin’s approach to the Soviet Constitution?  Why, absolutely nothing, of course.  Both men treated their constitutions as mere words on a page.  Both men were interested only in power, and if the ends to which they directed their power conflicted with written constitutional guaranties, then so much the worse for the constitutional guaranties.

Thomas Jefferson hoped that the constitutional order established by the founders would put an end to the idea that the mass of mankind has been born with saddles on their backs with “a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them.”  The problem, of course, is that someone is always trying to pull on the boots and strap on the spurs.  Nowadays those people are called “progressives.”  The totalitarian impulse is at the very heart of the progressive project.  How else are they going to force the mass of humanity along the road to their progressive utopia? Unsurprisingly, progressives have always bridled at the Constitution’s limits on their ability to wield raw political power, and from the time of Woodrow Wilson to this day, they have sought to undermine those limits.

For over a century progressives have been fighting an undeclared civil war against the limits to power on which Jefferson placed his hopes.  Will they succeed in hollowing out our Constitution?  I don’t know, but their project seems to be gaining momentum.  The issue remains in the balance, but it is hard to be optimistic.  It is common knowledge that our colleges are teaching the next generation to despise the First Amendment guaranty of free speech.  The Obama administration waged an eight-year war on freedom of religion and freedom of conscience.  After every tragic shooting, progressives call not for cracking down on criminals but for making criminals of law abiding citizens exercising their right to keep and bear arms.  Congress has all but abdicated its power to the administrative state.  Federalism has long been a dead letter.

How much longer before the people realize that the Brennan’s five-finger approach to constitutional law makes our Constitution a put up job no better than the Soviet Constitution? Will anyone still revere the Constitution and fight for it if they come to believe constitutional law is nothing but a smoke screen covering the exercise of raw power by our robed masters?

Ronald Reagon said, “freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn’t pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same.”  Just so.  Those who believe history has a trajectory and that that trajectory is inevitably toward greater liberty are simply wrong.  The lust for power never goes away.  Liberty must be preserved through struggle and resistance to those who believe they are the favored few.

And if we do not resist?  If we cede the field to the totalitarians?  What then?  Well, then we should get used to the weight of the saddle and the sting of the spur.  As Solzhenitsyn wrote, if we do not resist, “we are worthless and hopeless, and the scorn of Pushkin should be directed to us: ‘Why should cattle have the gifts of freedom? Their heritage from generation to generation is the belled yoke and the lash.'”

29 Replies to “Will Progressives Succeed in Hollowing Out the Constitution?

  1. 1
    Latemarch says:

    :Pushkin:
    “Why should cattle have the gifts of freedom? Their heritage from generation to generation is the belled yoke and the lash.”

    Were have I heard something like that?

    Samuel Adams:
    “If ye love wealth better than liberty,
    the tranquility of servitude
    better than the animating contest of freedom,
    go home from us in peace.
    We ask not your counsels or your arms.
    Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you.
    May your chains set lightly upon you,
    and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.”

  2. 2

    This is a very timely post, both in the broad UD blog readership sense, but also for me personally.

    Just two days ago I finished and published a new book with the title “Yearning for Liberty”

    You can preview and hopefully purchase a copy at —
    http://www.blurb.com/b/8546463.....or-liberty

    In the book I examine a number of the facets of liberty along the lines of the items below:

    Liberty – what is it?
    Liberty – its rarity
    Liberty – we yearn for it
    Liberty – we fight for it
    Liberty – its price
    Liberty – its value
    Liberty – its remembrance
    Liberty – can we learn?
    Conclusion & remembrance

    I welcome any comments this book may provoke — it has been a work of passion for me.

  3. 3
    polistra says:

    Our constitution was stunned into a coma in 1803 then burned in 1861. It no longer exists.

    The only pieces of the original document that are still accidentally and trivially obeyed are the lengths of terms for officers. (2 for Congress, 4 for pres, 6 for Senate.) No black-robed demon has found a reason to eliminate those numbers YET. Everything else is routinely and consistently violated by all levels of “government”.

  4. 4
    News says:

    Constitutions have a major top-down effect if people believe that they embody traditional notions of justice.

    Once upon a time in Toronto, I was teaching at a community college and a student came to me with a problem:

    She: The temp agency I work for says they won’t pay me for this week if I quit the awful job they are sending me to every day. But if they don’t pay me, I can’t pay my rent.

    Me: Slavery isn’t legal in Canada. Tell them that tomorrow morning, you and I are going down to the Labour Relations Board to find out what to do about this.

    At the time, I had no idea what agency to go to. But I assumed that no Big Bug could just send goons to beat her and me up while we did some research. Which is to say, in the background, there is a legal system upheld by a Constitution that means something in practice.

    She: (before the next class) Wow! I told them what you said and in half an hour they sent me the cheque in a taxi!

    Shortly afterward, I helped her find more respectable work.

    Barry, undermining constitutions means undermining vast numbers of situations where people access their rights without even involving the law directly. And that is how the real damage is done. It means breakdown of society at a “cellular” level, if you like. Law is replaced by bribery, blackmail, threats and violence.

  5. 5
    Barry Arrington says:

    News. Yes. We take for granted the rule of law. That is a mistake. Bribery, blackmail, threats and violence are by far the historical norm.

  6. 6
    kairosfocus says:

    If we only knew just how delicate and precious what we are playing rough games with is.

  7. 7
    john_a_designer says:

    The key question here is whether any naturalistic or materialistic worldview can provide any kind of basis for universal human rights? Keep in mind exactly what that means. A universal human right applies to all people living at all times. In other words, you naturally or intrinsically have rights because you are human and only human beings have those rights.

    A Darwinian “survival of the fittest” approach at best leads us to a form of tribalism which views a particular group think and herd morality as better or more privileged than another group think. That is not a basis for universal human rights because it is the group that grants its members their rights.

    If you look at the so-called progressive movement (think of the eugenics movement) which came into existence in the latter part of the nineteenth and early part of the twentieth century it was very Darwinian in its thinking and outlook.

    Wesley J. Smith shares some very provoking thoughts from evolutionary biologist Jerry Coyne.
    .

    Coyne makes the… claim that since we euthanize our sick pets, we should also kill seriously ill and disabled babies. He then explains why he thinks the reasons we resist that meme are wrong, and indeed, irrational. From his blog:

    “The reason we don’t allow euthanasia of newborns is because humans are seen as special, and I think this comes from religion—in particular, the view that humans, unlike animals, are endowed with a soul. It’s the same mindset that, in many places, won’t allow abortion of fetuses that have severe deformities. When religion vanishes, as it will, so will much of the opposition to both adult and newborn euthanasia.”

    Well, no. As I have written repeatedly, human exceptionalism can include religious views, but it definitely does not require them. As Coyne’s advocacy proves, once we reject human exceptionalism, universal human rights becomes unsustainable, and we move toward the manufacture of killable and exploitable castes of people, determined by the moral views of those with the power to decide.

    Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/.....acceptance

    Coyne’s thinking is the same kind of thinking which led to the Nazi led holocaust, which began with the medical euthanization of “undesirables,” not long after the beginning of WW II. That was a slippery slope which in turn began with the forced sterilizations in the U.S. and some other countries. It ended with Nazi Germany going off the cliff.

    However, I think I do agree with Coyne about one thing. Once you get rid of religious basis for morality and ethics, which in western society predominantly Judeo-Christian, you get rid of any basis of human rights. If there are no human rights then there is no basis at all for any kind of democracy.

    On the other hand, who is Jerry Coyne tell everyone else what to think and believe? If there is no transcendent basis for human rights then there are no human rights. And if that is true for everyone else then Jerry Coyne doesn’t have any rights either, not even the right to express his opinion. Apparently he has been able to fool himself into thinking he does. What do you call a person who so can so easily fool himself?

  8. 8
    Seversky says:

    Complaints about the Constitution being undermined or “judicial activism” usually reduce to a disagreement with a particular ruling or set of rulings. But how can this be avoided? However a given court might rule, there will almost always be those who disagree. Law is not a science. Decisions are required one way or the other even where evidence and argument are inconclusive or not even possible.

    If a future Supreme Court were to uphold Roe v Wade there would inevitably be a huge outcry from the anti-abortion movement. If they decided instead to strike it down there would be an equally vehement response from the pro-abortion movement. The reality is that the country is divided over the issue and, in my view, there is no objective measure by which to decide it. A constitutional originalist position is to me akin to Biblical literalism. It implies there is some measure of certainty to be had by appealing to the original intentions of the respective authors as expressed in their texts. That generally fails because the original texts are always subject to interpretation to some extent and we have no way now to consult those authors on the question of their intent.

    The danger is that, if you reject the inevitably slow legal or legislative remedies available, the only alternative eventually is the use of force and we all know where that will lead.

  9. 9
    ET says:

    The reality is that the country is divided over the issue and, in my view, there is no objective measure by which to decide it.

    Of course there is. Murder is not welcome in our society and abortion is murder, ie the ending of a human life. If we allow abortion, especially on the scale it is now, then complaining about gun violence is hypocritical.

  10. 10
    Molson Bleu says:

    The constitution is a great document but we have to stop treating it as an inerrant document written by perfect people. It was written by a very small group of white men, endorsed by a very small minority of the population, all white men, in a time that is very different than today.

    From a young age, we brainwash our children into believing that America is the best country on earth and that the flag and anthem must be treated with respect, no matter what. Maybe we are the best country, but I think that our country would be much better off by believing that it was not. Our arrogance stifles beneficial change. Any country that doesn’t change to reflect the times and the desires of its people will simply stagnate and die.

  11. 11
    ET says:

    Clearly the USA is doing something right as by far more people want to come here than want to leave.

  12. 12
    Seversky says:

    john_a_designer @ 7

    The key question here is whether any naturalistic or materialistic worldview can provide any kind of basis for universal human rights? Keep in mind exactly what that means. A universal human right applies to all people living at all times. In other words, you naturally or intrinsically have rights because you are human and only human beings have those rights.

    Actually, the key question is the origin or source of human rights. Are they entitlements that we as human beings have come to agree that all of us should be granted or do we assume we are not capable of deciding these matters for ourselves, that they must be dispensed from some other source such as our preferred God? Naturalism or materialism has no bearing on this because questions of how we ought to behave cannot be decided by appealing to how the world is.

    A Darwinian “survival of the fittest” approach at best leads us to a form of tribalism which views a particular group think and herd morality as better or more privileged than another group think. That is not a basis for universal human rights because it is the group that grants its members their rights

    Agreed and, as I’m sure you’re aware, atheist Richard Dawkins rejected the idea of a society based on Darwinian principles:

    Evolution by natural selection is the explanation for why we exist. It is not something to guide our lives in our own society. If we were to be guided by the evolution principle, then we would be living in a kind of ultra-Thatcherite, Reaganite society. … Study your Darwinism for two reasons, because it explains why you’re here, and the second reason is, study your Darwinism in order to learn what to avoid in setting up society. What we need is a truly anti-Darwinian society. Anti-Darwinian in the sense that we don’t wish to live in a society where the weakest go to the wall, where the strongest suppress the weak, and even kill the weak. We — I, at least — do not wish to live in that kind of society. I want to live in the sort of society where we take care of the sick, where we take care of the weak, take care of the oppressed, which is a very anti-Darwinian society

    On the thoughts of Wesley J Smith:

    Well, no. As I have written repeatedly, human exceptionalism can include religious views, but it definitely does not require them. As Coyne’s advocacy proves, once we reject human exceptionalism, universal human rights becomes unsustainable, and we move toward the manufacture of killable and exploitable castes of people, determined by the moral views of those with the power to decide.

    What Smith seems to ignore is that an assumption of exceptionalism in any form can have unfortunate consequences for the unexceptional. The excesses committed by the eugenics movement arose in part from the underlying assumption that those in power were exceptional and entitled to dispose of those less fortunate as they chose in the best interests of their society. The Nazi atrocities followed from the assumption of an exceptional Aryan master-race who, again, were entitled to dispose of the unexceptional rest of humanity as they chose. The unexceptional in all these cases are, of course, never consulted about these policies. They just suffer the consequences. That’s the reason I’m always skeptical about claims that this or that faith is the ultimate source of human rights. If God had appeared in one of His previous visits and actually consulted humanity about the question of rights and liberties I would be more sympathetic but, so far, that hasn’t happened.

  13. 13
    ET says:

    Naturalism or materialism has no bearing on this because questions of how we ought to behave cannot be decided by appealing to how the world is.

    What? How we ought to behave is determined by how we came into existence. Period. Anything else is arbitrary nonsense.

    That said, we definitely did not come into existence via blind and mindless processes so Dawkins is wrong- evolution by natural selection has nothing to do with why we exist. Perhaps Dawkins is not even wrong as his is an untestable claim. Either way he doesn’t have to worry.

  14. 14
    Barry Arrington says:

    Sev:

    Complaints about the Constitution being undermined or “judicial activism” usually reduce to a disagreement with a particular ruling or set of rulings. But how can this be avoided?

    How can this be avoided? I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you are asking a serious question.

    First, we recognize that some judicial decisions are supported by the text, structure and history of the Constitution. Others are not. In any given case, a judge cannot legitimately do any damn thing he wants.

    Once we recognize that, everything else follows. To avoid deciding a case in a way that is contrary to the text, structure and history of the Constitution, simply decide all cases in such as way that the decisions are supported by the text, structure and history of the Constitution.

    Now, that wasn’t so hard was it?

  15. 15
    Barry Arrington says:

    Sev:

    If a future Supreme Court were to uphold Roe v Wade there would inevitably be a huge outcry from the anti-abortion movement. If they decided instead to strike it down there would be an equally vehement response from the pro-abortion movement. The reality is that the country is divided over the issue and, in my view, there is no objective measure by which to decide it.

    You are deeply confused. The issue is not whether abortion is a good idea or a bad idea. The issue is not whether some people in the country support it while other people oppose it.

    The issue, from a constitutional perspective, is what does the Constitution say about it, if anything. And contrary to your assertion, there is an objective measure by which to decide that question — i.e., the text of the document we are talking about.

    And that text is utterly silent on the issue. Which means the states are free to legislate on the issue. Which means that Roe v. Wade was, as Justice White said at the time, an exercise of raw judicial power, not a legitimate construction of the text.

    Everyone knows this, not least the judges who decided the case. Roe is a classic example of Brennan’s five-fingered approach to constitutional law.

  16. 16
    Barry Arrington says:

    Sev,

    A constitutional originalist position is to me akin to Biblical literalism. It implies there is some measure of certainty to be had by appealing to the original intentions of the respective authors as expressed in their texts. That generally fails because the original texts are always subject to interpretation to some extent and we have no way now to consult those authors on the question of their intent.

    The text can fairly be interpreted to mean some things and not others. If you don’t admit this, then you are saying that in any given case the judges can do whatever they please. And in that case we are no longer living in a constitutional democracy. We are living in a country ruled by whoever can garner five of the nine votes up for grabs in the Supreme Court.

    For the judges to be bound by the text, the text must have some meaning. For example, if George W. Bush had run for a third term, the court would have been bound to enjoin his attempt. It would be absurd for them to say that two terms really means three terms. They are bound by the text that says two terms.

    The same is true in all other cases.

  17. 17
    Barry Arrington says:

    Sev,

    Richard Dawkins rejected the idea of a society based on Darwinian principles.

    And, famously, he was unable to give a principled reason for doing so. He admitted it simply boiled down to his personal preference. If you are trying to suggest that Darwinian principles provide some basis for a coherent ethical system, your Dawkins example just exploded in your face.

  18. 18
    Molson Bleu says:

    Barry@14&15. This makes sense. And I preface the following with the statement that I am no constitutional expert, so please correct me if I am wrong. But it is my understanding that the constitution also says nothing specifically about the rights of blacks and women. Does this mean that things like slavery and women’s vote should have been left up to the states?

  19. 19
    Barry Arrington says:

    MB:

    But it is my understanding that the constitution also says nothing specifically about the rights of blacks and women. Does this mean that things like slavery and women’s vote should have been left up to the states?

    Nope. The whole purpose of the 14th Amendment (which is part of the Constitution) is to forbid the states from discriminating on the basis of race. The 19th Amendment gives women the right to vote.

  20. 20
    Barry Arrington says:

    Sev,

    Complaints about the Constitution being undermined or “judicial activism” usually reduce to a disagreement with a particular ruling or set of rulings.

    I wanted to follow up on this a little more. If you mean that those of us who disagree with Brennan’s five-fingered approach to constitutional law complain when we see it being applied, then, yes, that is correct.

    You go on to suggest that the text is too vague to supply a basis for decision. I call BS on that. The real reason you are OK with abandoning the text is that you agree with the results reached by the five-fingered approach.

    I guaranty that if you disagreed with a particular result and the result you desired was actually supported by the text, you would become an ardent textualist so quickly our heads would spin.

  21. 21
    kairosfocus says:

    BA, I remember the late Robert Novak on CNN’s Crossfire what 20+ years ago, describing the US Supreme Court as a Super Legislature. One, presumably with nine life-tenure members. That sounds close to a nine-member oligarchy to me. Or should I say, monarchy? One that is not even bound by the principles of a lawful state led by a corpus of law . . . especially now that to say “Anglo-American” (i.e. Common Law) legal tradition has been smeared as “racist” by the usual media lynch-mob. My comment is, there is a legislature that is the senior arm of government and there is an amendment process; if you want to change the law do so properly. And if the proper way will not work in favour of your agenda, have the democratic principles to respect the general will of the people. Where, already the USA is skirting dangerously close to having factions that refuse to accept electoral results that don’t go their way. Down that road lies civil war. With Antifa in the streets and beaning people with bicycle padlocks, that is closer than any sane person would wish. KF

  22. 22
    Barry Arrington says:

    KF @ 21.

    That is exactly correct. The Supreme Court has set itself up as a super-legislature consisting of a committee of nine life-tenured, unelected and unaccountable lawyers ruling over the rest of us as if they were Platonic philosopher-kings. Don’t believe me? Just read the clap trap philosophy disguised as jurisprudence in Justice Kennedy’s more controversial decisions.

    As I mentioned @ 21, people like Seversky are content with the destruction of our constitutional order, because they like where the new regime is taking us. Those of us who revere constitutional democracy can only mourn the loss.

  23. 23
    john_a_designer says:

    Without a transcendent standard for interpersonal moral obligation there is no basis for universal human rights. Nevertheless, the secular progressive left, which has no transcendent basis for morality, ethics or human rights, because it is rooted in a mindless naturalistic metaphysic, has illegitimately co-opted the idea of human rights to push its perverted political agenda of so-called social justice. How can someone’s (or anyone’s) subjective opinion of right and wrong become the basis of universal human rights?

    Many of our regular interlocutors here have tried to argue that moral values are in fact subjective. But subjective values do not carry any kind of interpersonal moral obligation. They are your values not mine. They are simply arbitrary personal preferences. Why should I be obligated to even respect your personal opinion? How can one have something like universal human rights based on arbitrary subjective personal preferences? And what good is any kind of moral system if moral obligations are not real and binding?

    The U.S. founding fathers appear to have understood that ideologically motivated groups like the SP left (so-called factions) would try to subvert the political process. This is one reason why they made it difficult to amend the U.S. Constitution. For example, the first 10 amendments to the constitution, the so-called Bill of Rights required a 2/3 vote in each house of congress as well as approval of ¾ of state legislatures. It appears the founders thought this would prevent a small vocal faction from subverting the will of the people. However, apparently they didn’t notice the loophole in article III that allowed Supreme Court judges to appropriate more power than was constitutionally granted to them. That’s the loophole that the SP left has been able to exploit and is why they have used the courts to push their agenda. You don’t need to convince an overwhelming majority of people you are right– you don’t even need to convince a majority. All you need is to convince are a few sympathetic judges who share tour enlightened group think. The problem is that is not representative or small-r republican government. That’s an oligarchy. An oligarchy is one of the types of government that takes away rights.

  24. 24
    EvilSnack says:

    Did the Soviet constitution have something like our Second Amendment?

    The answer to that question will tell you everything. Our Constitution was crafted to limit the power of each branch with the intent to limit the overall power of the government, and as an early first step the government was required to leave a specific power in the hands of the people. That has made the difference.

  25. 25
    kairosfocus says:

    JAD:

    Without a transcendent standard for interpersonal moral obligation there is no basis for universal human rights.

    Precisely.

    A right is a binding moral claim to be regarded in some respect, rooted in our dignity as human beings. It implies reciprocal moral duties of care to life, liberty, honest property, innocent reputation and much more; all, as integral to the community’s civil peace of justice. Where, to properly claim such a right, one must manifestly be in the right, or else one is merely demanding that others uphold him in wrong. This is the very lever that is now being used to enforce enabling of evils through lawfare, perversion of law and justice. And, he who would rob me of my means of daily bread, would rob me of my life.

    When the basis for such rights is undermined, the regard for one another follows down the drain.

    In its place we find the amorality and nihilism of might and manipulation make ‘truth’ ‘right’ ‘justice’ ‘rights’ etc.

    If you doubt me ask the ghosts of 800+ millions of our global posterity slaughtered in the womb since the 1970’s.

    And if you look for a way that our thinking, law, state, parliaments, courts, policing agencies, media, education and even many pulpits were corrupted, look no further.

    This is the central wrong and crime against humanity of our age, and the seeping blood-guilt has tainted everything.

    Other perversities and politically correct evils just follow in its train.

    KF

  26. 26
    Molson Bleu says:

    Barry@19, thank you for the response. But when the 14th and 19th amendments were proposed, did they not also receive criticism that they were hollowing out the nature of, and diluting the importance of the constitution?

    The constitution is for the people. If a significant majority of citizens want it changed, there are mechanisms in place for that. Frankly, I would rather see more frequent amendments rather than trying to make the current wording support some act that the constitution and its authors obviously could not foresee.

  27. 27
    ET says:

    There isn’t anything in the Constitution that says women and African Americans are not people. There isn’t anything that defines “civilian”.

  28. 28
    Barry Arrington says:

    MB:

    Frankly, I would rather see more frequent amendments rather than trying to make the current wording support some act that the constitution and its authors obviously could not foresee.

    Then you and I agree.

  29. 29
    ET says:

    Isn’t that the reason why there are amendments in the first place?

    We just need people in power that are smart enough to recognize when one is needed and then work to make it so.

Leave a Reply