As we watch the confirmation hearings on Judge Gorsuch to the Supreme Court, let’s also consider how we arrived at a point at which one appointment can make the difference between following our Constitution as written; safeguarding the Natural Rights of the individual and the sovereignty of the states or allowing further erosion of both as if no constitutional barriers exist.
Those hoping to alter the Constitution’s “meaning” without benefit of the very public, transparent, and deliberative process laid out in Article V would prefer the Constitution means “whatever we can win public support for.”
Rather than openly proposing Constitutional Amendments in the lawful manner prescribed by the Constitution itself, they’ve found it much more expedient to effect their “amendments” via manipulation of public opinion. Given their uncontested dominance within the popular media, public education and entertainment industries, molding public opinion has been easy for them.
This tactic, however, requires a legal doctrine that gives cover to interpretations opposing or distorting the meaning of the text: The “living document” doctrine roughly states that the “Constitution means different things at different times to different people. It therefore must be interpreted against the backdrop of present social circumstances.” This theory would render the document essentially useless as an articulation of Natural Law, a structure constraining Gov’t authority or a measure of the justice of Statutory Law.
“America is a Democracy”, they insist, “The law of the Land is whatever we can win public support for!” They are correct that a Democracy acknowledges no transcendent, immutable, Natural Law – the law is whatever a majority can be convinced it should be.
That is why America is not a Democracy but a Constitutional Republic.
To those seeking to aggregate power in the fewest possible hands, this presented an obstacle. The “living document” theory was their path around that challenge. They need only to maintain majority presence on a 9-member panel tasked with “interpreting” the Constitution in order to impose their will on a nation of over 300 million.
Until very recently, the combination of weakened Constitutional constraints on government achieved via “living document interpretations” and propaganda for collectivist ideation presented as news, education and entertainment seemed destined to prevail.
Judicial review being “final” when it culminates with a SCOTUS ruling, SCOTUS rulings are treated as “the last word” on any matter – effectively nationalizing laws in areas our Constitution leaves within the states’ jurisdiction.
We have inadvertently established a 9-person panel – any 5 of which now exercise power exceeding that of the other two branches and of the states in their role as “final arbiters” of Constitutional meaning. But it’s yet worse than that…
Opinions issued by the High Court are given more weight than is the Constitutional text when rendering new decisions – making it not only possible, but probable for the “interpreted meaning” to oppose the text it ostensibly “interprets.”
Among remedies being discussed by proponents of an Article V Convention of the States is a path by which a threshold number of States, acting in concert, can over-rule SCOTUS decisions (as well as rescind regulations) which infringe on their sovereignty. This would make SCOTUS and the entire Judiciary (as well as the Executive Branch) accountable to the (people of) the states.
Thank God America is now awakening to the unique expression human liberty is offered under the American Constitution! In over 5000 years of recorded human history, liberty, the natural, created state of every human being, has found its best expression only in the past 250 years under American Constitution.
This technology of liberty; bequeathed to us in the form of our Constitution, (the oldest standing Constitution in the world), is still revolutionary in its “bottom-up” concept of political power, deliberate division of power among the branches of government and the preservation of sovereignty within the states it serves to unite. Many of its governing principles have since been emulated by countries throughout the world; The “technology of liberty” codified in America has enriched the whole of mankind.
We’re not going backward into subjugation under consolidated power of the ruling class. Americans are taking action to preserve the gains for Liberty achieved by our framers.
1. Many are already engaged in the active pursuit of the LAWFUL amendment process under Article V which will enable the unwinding of accumulated layers of rulings, make the Judiciary (and the Executive branches) accountable to the States. See www.ConventionOfStates.com to learn more about this fast-growing movement and the progress achieved so far.
2. We’re demanding the appointment of SCOTUS judges who’ve demonstrated fidelity to the Constitution’s plain text.
Because our Constitution provides for its own Amendment through a deliberative, public process, there is no valid or lawful argument for empowering a 9-person panel to “interpret” its text against any standard other than that used to interpret any other legal document: the intent of the makers.
We cannot allow an Elite Panel to claim that the words, “…the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” have taken on a meaning that now permits infringement.
There is only ONE yardstick against which a SCOTUS judge should be measured: demonstrated fidelity to the Constitution’s stated intent.