There has been a great debate roiling in America for more than a century. That debate being about whether the Constitution is carved in stone or a “living document.”
Real 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, 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, a living or malleable Constitution. This has been the progressive movement’s mantra from Woodrow Wilson to today.
Most may be surprised that, in my opinion, the Founders, as well as I, would also agree with Mr. Mincberg. The Constitution can indeed be changed, dare I say “amended,” to reflect “changing circumstances.”
However, when progressives yearn for a “living Constitution,” they are not really talking about changing the document itself. They are, of course, speaking of usurping the Constitution by presidential mandates and bureaucratic edicts: An act is 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, say, the Ten Commandments, which were in fact written in stone and thus unchangeable.
The Constitution has been changed or amended 17 times. And this, for progressive statists, is the problem. It’s just too hard.
If the federal government wanted to make everyone eat a peanut butter sandwich once a week, maybe wear a mask, get vaccinated or own an electric car, 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. Stabile 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 the 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 unilaterally decided the winner of the toss must defer to the other team. He claims it doesn’t matter what the written rule says. It was written long ago, and it no longer reflects “changing circumstances.”
No player, coach or fan would stand for it. Yet we are all players on team America, and we just stand by 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, e.g., the ravages of COVID and climate change, the need to “Build Back Better,” etc.
Well, they didn’t have to. I’ve said it before but it bears repeating. Human nature doesn’t change. Never has, never will. Since the beginning, 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 said: “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 understood 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 between the ingrossing 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 those on the left, think we are so much smarter and more 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.
Listen to an audio version of this column:
Content created by the WND News Center is available for re-publication without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact [email protected].
SUPPORT TRUTHFUL JOURNALISM. MAKE A DONATION TO THE NONPROFIT WND NEWS CENTER. THANK YOU!
