Thank you for stopping by for a visit. You are invited to read and comment on anything posted on this blog. I advocate the maximum amount of Personal and Economic Liberty, consistent with the defense of individual rights. I am fiscally conservative yet socially tolerant, I favor lower taxes, free trade, individual rights, strong national defense and limited government. I subscribe to the Freedom Fighters Creed: I am an American Patriot, defender of the Constitution, First Principles and Essential Liberty.

I believe that buried deep down inside every Conservative you'll find a Libertarian - And Inside Every Liberal Is A Totalitarian Screaming To Get Out.

"One of the penalties of refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors" - Plato

FYI any crude or vulgar comments will be removed from the blog.

Wednesday, May 2, 2012

The Threat A “Living Constitution” Poses To America

How can we have rule of law when judges can amend our founding document at their whim?
The term “living constitution” doesn’t poll well. That’s what Constitutional Accountability Center (CAC) president and founder Doug Kendall told participants in a teleforum sponsored by the American Association of University Women. Kendall, a self-described progressive, was explaining why other progressives need to replace the “living constitutional method” with something new. That something new, Kendall believes, is the “whole constitutional method.”
For decades, liberals (now progressives) have been advancing the living constitution approach to constitutional interpretation. The term dates back to Professor Howard McBain’s 1927 book The Living Constitution. Constitutional scholar David Strauss published a book with the same title just two years ago. Apparently Strauss had not seen the polling data, or maybe it is only in the last few months that the term “living constitution” fell out of favor.
In a nutshell, the idea of the “living constitution” is that a constitution drafted in 1787 cannot possibly serve the needs of a twenty-first-century society. So it is incumbent on the courts to adapt the Constitution to modern conditions and changed values. Textualists and originalists object that this approach defeats the liberty-protecting, power-restraining purposes of the Constitution. How can we have the rule of law, they ask rhetorically, if judges are free to effectively amend the Constitution.CONTINUE READING 

No comments: