Frank Haertlein
Moderator
"The living constitution". A term to describe newfound, liberal interpretations of the constitution in order to try and make it "fit" with a modern society (as though the constitution is outdated and not valid in a modern society....... Judge Robert Bork is guilty of this line of thinking) is potentially the single most divisive and dangerous threat to the national security of the United States.
The rulings of a liberal supreme court have found new meanings (actually "made up" interpretations) such as "abortion is legal". You may agree or disagree with this ruling but, none-the-less, there is nothing within the constitution that could be construed to give or deny that right. It says nothing about "abortion rights". This decision is up to the states as those rights not denied by the constitution are reserved by it to the states.
That the supreme court in years past has decided on issues like "abortion rights", speaks to the new liberal interpretation designed to "adapt" the constitution to a modern society and, in effect, act in a such a manner as to "regulate" or "direct" society in a certain direction.
This is known as "SOCIAL ENGINEERING" and, through this newfound "active interpretation" it, ultimately, leads to a direct threat to national security by seeking to direct society in a direction contrary to the intent of the constitution.
We can see one example of this in the killings of abortion doctors arising out of a supreme court decision (Roe Vs. Wade). Because of a "NEW FOUND" interpretation of a right to abortion, our country has been divided along those abortion lines and thus we end up fighting with ourselves instead of addressing the root causes of the "social" problems that stem from social attitudes of free sex without consequence "engineered by a liberal media" and, subsequently, codified into law by a liberal supreme court.
A potential, future example of this might be the denial of second amendment rights. I would hope, and can pretty much guarantee, a similar, yet more pronounced "response" by constitutionalists and second amendment activists were they forced to live under a "newfound" interpretation of the constitution by a supreme court denying the second amendment rights of Americans.
The danger to society posed by liberal "new found" interpretations of the constitution far outweigh any perceived benefits due to the divisive nature of these supreme court decisions.
The prevailing wisdom by academia and the judiciary seems to be that the constitution is inadequate to address the needs of a modern society. To our peril, they have forgotten that the original intent was to provide a system of checks and balances to ensure our liberties and freedoms - not to give the constitution new meaning in an attempt to deal with the fleeting minutea of modern life (micro management, if you will).
I propose, here, that the constitution should not be liberally interpreted with new found meaning and, instead, righteously understood to acknowledge an attempt to address the evils of human nature by our founders (for example, the division of powers and the amendments, etc). Men tended towards evil 200 years ago and still today men tend towards evil as human nature has not changed and likley will not change for a very long time.
The constitution is an ageless document and is as valid today as it was 200 years ago precisely because it addresses the evils in human nature (because power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely and humans almost always seek to subjugate another). Human rights have been presumed, recognized and, hopefully, guaranteed by the constitution. Do we really need to foster further divisiveness, violence and strife by socially engineering American society through new found meanings in the constitution?
If the answer is YES then we are doomed to repeat the lessons of the past and those who promote that position are a direct threat to the national security of the Untied States as those positions will lead to divisiveness and, ultimately, violence destructive to American society.
--------------------------------------
"On every question of construction (of the constitution) let us carry ourselves back to the time when the constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit of the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed." - Thomas Jefferson
[This message has been edited by Frank Haertlein (edited November 24, 1999).]
The rulings of a liberal supreme court have found new meanings (actually "made up" interpretations) such as "abortion is legal". You may agree or disagree with this ruling but, none-the-less, there is nothing within the constitution that could be construed to give or deny that right. It says nothing about "abortion rights". This decision is up to the states as those rights not denied by the constitution are reserved by it to the states.
That the supreme court in years past has decided on issues like "abortion rights", speaks to the new liberal interpretation designed to "adapt" the constitution to a modern society and, in effect, act in a such a manner as to "regulate" or "direct" society in a certain direction.
This is known as "SOCIAL ENGINEERING" and, through this newfound "active interpretation" it, ultimately, leads to a direct threat to national security by seeking to direct society in a direction contrary to the intent of the constitution.
We can see one example of this in the killings of abortion doctors arising out of a supreme court decision (Roe Vs. Wade). Because of a "NEW FOUND" interpretation of a right to abortion, our country has been divided along those abortion lines and thus we end up fighting with ourselves instead of addressing the root causes of the "social" problems that stem from social attitudes of free sex without consequence "engineered by a liberal media" and, subsequently, codified into law by a liberal supreme court.
A potential, future example of this might be the denial of second amendment rights. I would hope, and can pretty much guarantee, a similar, yet more pronounced "response" by constitutionalists and second amendment activists were they forced to live under a "newfound" interpretation of the constitution by a supreme court denying the second amendment rights of Americans.
The danger to society posed by liberal "new found" interpretations of the constitution far outweigh any perceived benefits due to the divisive nature of these supreme court decisions.
The prevailing wisdom by academia and the judiciary seems to be that the constitution is inadequate to address the needs of a modern society. To our peril, they have forgotten that the original intent was to provide a system of checks and balances to ensure our liberties and freedoms - not to give the constitution new meaning in an attempt to deal with the fleeting minutea of modern life (micro management, if you will).
I propose, here, that the constitution should not be liberally interpreted with new found meaning and, instead, righteously understood to acknowledge an attempt to address the evils of human nature by our founders (for example, the division of powers and the amendments, etc). Men tended towards evil 200 years ago and still today men tend towards evil as human nature has not changed and likley will not change for a very long time.
The constitution is an ageless document and is as valid today as it was 200 years ago precisely because it addresses the evils in human nature (because power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely and humans almost always seek to subjugate another). Human rights have been presumed, recognized and, hopefully, guaranteed by the constitution. Do we really need to foster further divisiveness, violence and strife by socially engineering American society through new found meanings in the constitution?
If the answer is YES then we are doomed to repeat the lessons of the past and those who promote that position are a direct threat to the national security of the Untied States as those positions will lead to divisiveness and, ultimately, violence destructive to American society.
--------------------------------------
"On every question of construction (of the constitution) let us carry ourselves back to the time when the constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit of the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed." - Thomas Jefferson
[This message has been edited by Frank Haertlein (edited November 24, 1999).]