There has been a great debate roiling in America for more than a century: whether or not the Constitution is carved in stone or a "living document."
Conservatives wish to govern in accordance with the Constitution and the "original intent" of those who crafted the document. I would agree with this, as obviously would the founders.
In 2006 Todd Gaziono of the Heritage Foundation said: "Original intent is the only legitimate means of interpretation under our written Constitution, and all other philosophies are illegitimate." Mr. Gaziono is, of course, correct.
That same year Elliott Mincberg, the then-vice president of the George Soros ultra lefty group People for the American Way said: "It was the framers' intent that the Constitution adapt to changing circumstances." In other words, it's a living or malleable Constitution. This has been the progressive movement's mantra from Woodrow Wilson to today.
Most may be surprised that the founders, as well as I, would agree with Mr. Mincberg. The Constitution can indeed be changed to reflect "changing circumstances."
OK, both sides of the argument can't be correct, and they're not. Obviously, the "living Constitution" crowd is wrong. As we all know, when progressives opine about a "living Constitution," they are not really talking about changing the document itself. They are, of course, speaking of usurping the Constitution by laws and presidential mandates – then merely claiming that what they did is somehow constitutional because some black-robed demigod said so.
As proof, you'll notice leftists never speak of constitutional amendments – just the sacrosanct "rule of law," or "law of the land."
Still, one could consider the Constitution a living document. It can and has been changed or adapted to the times, unlike the 10 Commandments, which were in fact written in stone. The Constitution has been changed or amended 17 times. And this, for statists, is the problem.
If the federal and state governments wanted to make everyone eat a peanut butter sandwich once a week, they could draft an amendment. There are even instructions on how to do it. It's called Article V of the Constitution.
But as I said, this is not the way of the progressive statist. They don't wish stability, which is what the Constitution represents.
What do I mean by stability? A simple set of basic rules and parameters that are easy to understand and must be followed. Without that stability, there is chaos. Stable households have rules, as do businesses and sports.
Imagine being a football player, maybe even one of the captains. You join the opposing team's captains in the middle of the field for the coin toss. The referee tosses a coin, and you call heads. It comes up heads and you figure you've won the toss and tell him you want the ball first – you wish to receive. He says that he has decided the winner of the toss must defer to the other team. He just felt like changing the rule. He claims it doesn't matter what the written rule says. It was written long ago and it no longer reflects "changing circumstances."
And by the way, if you're team is leading by more than 15 points at halftime, penalties will be differently enforced, starting in the third quarter. The ref tells the coaches he hasn't decided what the penalties will be. He'll let them know as "circumstances" in the game "change."
No football player, coach or fan would stand for it. Yet we are all players on team America, and we just stand around and let the refs change the rules all the time.
That's why stability is important, yet progressives continually harp on the notion that those dead white guys couldn't have possibly predicted the environment we live in today.
Well, they didn't have to. Human nature doesn't change. Never has, never will. Since the beginning of time, human beings think and act virtually the same as today, so it's easy to predict their behavior.
On Dec. 20, 1787, Thomas Jefferson wrote a letter to James Madison. In it he described his likes and dislikes of the Constitution. One passage explained: "I think our governments will remain virtuous for many centuries; as long as they are chiefly agricultural; and this will be as long as there shall be vacant lands in any part of America. When they get piled up upon one another in large cities, as in Europe, they will become corrupt as in Europe."
Just look at how corrupt our cities have become. How would Jefferson have known this would occur? Easy – he was a student of human nature!
There is a postscript at the end of the letter that reads: "The instability of our laws is really an immense evil. I think it would be well to provide in our constitutions that there shall always be a twelve-month [period] between ingross-ing a bill and passing it: that it should then be offered to its passage without changing a word: and that if circumstances should be thought to require a speedier passage, it should take two-thirds of both houses instead of a bare majority."
Wow! Was Jefferson some kind of clairvoyant? Of course not. Again, human nature doesn't change.
We today, at least some of us, think we are so much smarter and sophisticated than the founders, with their agrarian mentality. How could they possibly have envisioned America in the 21st century? Well, they did – and we would be wiser to look back to our founding for guidance and stability, rather than succumb to the purposeful chaos of progressivism.