Saturday, May 24, 2014

Is The Constitution A Living Document Which Should Change Over Time?

How far can we stretch the U. S. Constitution?
In a recent interview with U. S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia on the CBS news program 60 Minutes, correspondent Lesley Stahl raised several questions regrading the U. S. Constitution, since our U. S. Supreme Court is charged with interpreting our Constitution and normally making a final decision on any Constitutional issues.

Justice Scalia practices a philosophy of what he calls "originalism", meaning that he chooses to interpret our Constitution based on the meanings and intentions of the people who ratified it over 200 years ago. He went further to say, "Society doesn't change through a Constitution."

Even though our Constitution is certainly an enduring document that we must all defend each and every day, our Constitution is not a "living" document that requires amending each time a rogue judge wants to create "rights" not actually in our Constitution or when we want the Constitution to say what we would like for it to say?

The words in our Constitution should be interpreted with the same meanings of the people who ratified it?



Let's look at some good examples:

Here are the words of Article II of our U. S. Constitution: 
"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." 
When this article was written, weapons were necessary for protection and law enforcement. What have we done with it today? Well, we have totally eliminated the words "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state" and kept the rest. Now some people actually believe that we have the right under our U. S. Constitution to buy assault rifles to practice with in our backyard or to go deer hunting with an AK-47. The Constitution didn't say that at all.

What about Roe v Wade?

Our U. S. Supreme Court made a 7 to 2 decision to allow a woman to kill her baby under the "Privacy" provisions of the U. S. Constitution. First of all, I cannot find the word "privacy" in the Constitution. I challenge anyone to show me where the word "privacy" appears. So, the highest court in the land has made a decision based on a provision of our Constitution which doesn't even exist. In this case, the Court has made the Constitution say what they would like for it to say.

Let's look at "Free Speech":

Here are the words of Amendment I to our U. S. Constitution:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
What have we done with the First Amendment? Well, the courts say that the desecration and burning of our U. S. Flag, our symbol of freedom, is protected under the First Amendment. Where does the First Amendment say that? Again, our courts have made the Constitution say what they would like for it to say.

Separation of Church and State:

Again, we use the First Amendment to prohibit prayer in schools or display a nativity scene on public property. The Constitution, first of all, does not even contain the phrase "separation of church and state", what it does say is "Congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . ." Our founding fathers didn't want the government to establish and promote one set religious belief, it doesn't take an attorney or a judge to understand that. I just can't believe that their intentions were to ban school prayer.

What our attorneys and judges seem to do is read the Constitution and then make the decision, "Well, they said this, but they really meant to say this".

Our U. S. Constitution was good enough for the people 200 years ago and it's good enough for us still today, but it is not a "living" document that requires revising every time someone gets the whim to change it.

Our founding fathers were very intelligent and they knew and understood what they were doing. I really don't think they got together and decided that this was just a draft and whoever comes along can make whatever changes they think is necessary at the time.

I realize there are other ideas and opinions on this topic. That's what makes this country so great. Please join me on LinkedIn and Google+.

As a freelance writer, I write on many other topics outside government and politics. If you need some help writing those high quality blog posts, you can get in touch over here. - Ken