Light Brings Salt
Volume 3, Issue 36
Iron Range Bible
Church
Dedicated to the Systematic Exposition of the Word of God
"We
the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union,
establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense,
promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves
and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United
States of America." —George Washington and the delegates
Saturday,
17 September, is Constitution Day, in recognition of the 218th anniversary of
that venerable document's signing by our nation's Founders. Of course, most of
the federal judiciary pays no homage to that date. They are preoccupied
rewriting the so-called "Living Constitution," amending it by
judicial diktat rather than its prescribed method in Article V.
For
its first 150 years (with a few exceptions), our Constitution stood as our
Founders, and more importantly, "the people," intended—as is—in accordance with its original
intent.
In
the early 20th Century, there was still evidence of reverence for the supreme
law of the land. For example, prohibitionists acknowledged that the
Constitution did not include a single word about alcohol consumption and would
have to be amended before the central government would have the authority to
outlaw alcohol. On
These
two amendments were the last pertaining most directly to the authority of the
central government, while the remaining five address specific modifications to
the plain language of our Constitution. So how is it now that the central
government has become the behemoth our Constitution expressly prohibited?
Prior
to the reign of Franklin D. Roosevelt, the courts were still largely populated
with originalists, who properly rendered legal
interpretation based on construction of the Constitution's "original
intent." However, FDR grossly exceeded the Constitutional limits upon the
authority of his office and that of the legislature in his folly to end The
Great Depression (the latter falling victim to World War II—not FDR's social
and economic engineering). FDR's extra-constitutional exploits opened the door
for the judiciary to follow the same path—to read into the Constitution what
was necessary to make it conform to the demands of the prevailing political
will.
In
the decades that followed, the notion of a "Living Constitution," one
subject to all manner of judicial interpretation, took hold in the federal
courts. Judicial activists, those who legislate from the bench by issuing
rulings based on their personal interpretation of the Constitution, or at the
behest of likeminded special-interest constituencies, were nominated for the
federal bench and confirmed in droves.
The Constitution has become "a mere thing of wax in
the hands of the judiciary which they may twist and shape into any form they
please," as Thomas Jefferson warned.
This
degradation of law was codified by the
Consequently,
we now have a Constitution in exile,
its having becoming little more than a straw man as the courts have become
increasingly politicized. To wit, in recent decisions, judicial activists on
the Supreme Court have cited "national consensus" and
"international law" as factors in their decisions.
On
Wednesday of this week U.S. District Judge Lawrence Karlton
ruled that recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance in government schools
constitutes a "coercive requirement to affirm God." That, of course,
is factually inaccurate (AKA "a lie"). Students may refrain, on their
own or at their parents' discretion, from repeating any or all words in the
Pledge.
Karlton said he was bound by precedent of the Ninth Circuit Court
of Appeals, though he could have ruled against and said he was "bound by
the Constitution of these
The
Ninth Circuit's errant ruling is based on the most insidious line of activist
interpretations of our Constitution's First Amendment invoking the so called "Wall of Separation". As noted in
this column last week, the late Supreme Court Chief Justice William Rehnquist
said, "The wall of separation between church and state is a metaphor based
upon bad history, a metaphor which has proved useless as a guide to judging. It
should be frankly and explicitly abandoned... The greatest injury of the 'wall'
notion is its mischievous diversion of judges from the actual intention of the
drafters of the Bill of Rights."
This
brings us to the Chief Justice nomination of Judge John Roberts to replace
Chief Justice William Rehnquist. Judge Roberts, and a yet-to-be-named nominee
to replace retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, is taking a considerable
pounding from Sen. Ted Kennedy and Sen. Joe Biden,
who are doing everything they can to undermine support for a judge who would
not do their bidding.
How important is it that Constitutional-constructionist
nominees be confirmed? The future of the
Republic is riding on it.
Just
how important is it that President George Bush's Constitutional-constructionist
nominees be confirmed? It is more important than anything else this
administration could hope to accomplish. The future of the Republic is riding
on these confirmations.
The Federalist Papers, as the definitive explication of our Constitution's
original intent, clearly define original intent in regards to Constitutional
interpretation. In Federalist
No. 78 Alexander Hamilton writes, "[The Judicial Branch] may truly be said
to have neither FORCE nor WILL, but merely judgment...liberty can have nothing
to fear from the judiciary alone, but would have everything to fear from its
union with either of the other departments." In Federalist No. 81
George
Washington advised, "The basis of our political systems is the right of
the people to make and to alter their Constitutions of Government. But the
Constitution which at any time exists, 'till changed by an explicit and
authentic act of the whole People is sacredly obligatory upon all."
Today,
218 years hence, Justice Antonin Scalia says of judicial activism, "As
long as judges tinker with the Constitution to 'do what the people want,'
instead of what the document actually commands, politicians who pick and
confirm new federal judges will naturally want only those who agree with them
politically."
While
the words "conservative" and "liberal" are ubiquitously
used to describe Republicans and Democrats respectively, these words properly
should describe whether one advocates for the conservation of our Constitution,
as originally intended, or its liberal interpretation by judicial activists.
Does one want to conserve
Constitutional limits on the central government, or liberate those limits?
Our Constitution established a nation of laws, not men.
Our
Constitution was written and ratified "in order secure the Blessings of
Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity" as set forth in the Declaration of
Independence "endowed by their Creator." It established a Republic
intended to reflect the consent of the governed, a nation of laws, not men.
At
the close of the Constitutional Convention in
Article is excerpted from the