-->

Conservative Daily News - The best news, analysis and opinion articles written by a collection of citizen journalists. Covering a range of important topics in blogs, op-ed, and news posts, these upstanding patriots are bringing back American exceptionalism with every entry..

Is the Constitution An Anachronism?

One of the most specious and inane arguments in politics today is that the Constitution is an arcane, anachronistic document created by imperfect men, and that it is therefore illogical to interpret it literally. They assert that the founding fathers didn’t have a “crystal ball” and couldn’t have foreseen issues like privacy in the 21st century, and so those of us who believe the Constitution to be a social contract limiting the powers of government must be “out of our minds.”

ConstitutionThe first of those arguments is a logical fallacy. The tu quoque fallacy asserts that since the founders were imperfect, whatever they may say or do is equally imperfect or questionable. That would be tantamount to saying that because a certain physics instructor is specious, illogical, and misinformed about history and our system of governance, that he’s equally inept and tenuous in physics. Such a conclusion is obviously faulty logic, and based on a false premise.

The second argument is equally misguided. The founders didn’t need a “crystal ball” to foresee 21st century challenges. A constitution is by definition, “a body of fundamental principles or established precedents according to which a state is to be governed.” Consequently, the founding fathers didn’t need to be aware of “privacy” issues, or the internet, or any historically contextual development that may prove intellectually taxing to those who presuppose in their unwarranted arrogance, that they should have.

The structure established by the Constitution created legislative bodies that could adapt to changing times, by passing laws to deal with such vicissitudes, while the foundation, or fundamental principles, could endure, protecting the individual over the presumed and evolutionary expansion of the “rights” of the state. Plus, provision for changing the text of that social contract was made through the amendment process, which has been done 27 times to date.

Our Constitution established a system of governance that could stand the test of time, as long as citizens valued freedom more than tyranny. A system that, if held fast to, would assure that no one person, or oligarchical self-anointed leaders, could become totalitarians in a republic so structured. And it included guaranteed rights and privileges, for the first time in history, not granted by a monarch, ruler, magistrate, or benevolent dictator, but acknowledged to have originated from deity for all men. This is perfectly illustrated by our current president’s admission that, “I am constrained by a system that our Founders put in place,” although there’s precious little evidence of such constraint.

Is it a perfect system? Obviously not, especially in light of our contemporary crony-capitalism, that corrupts government and capitalism. The founding fathers maintained that for the republic to endure, we must have a moral people, which is the only real anachronism from our founding era, casting the most ominous clouds of doubt over the perpetuity of the republic.

When it is argued that the Constitution is a “living” document, implication is made that the precepts and principles of the Constitution are not applicable to today and provides an excuse for all types of scurrilous and specious assertions for expanded government largesse at the expense of our freedom and our money. To say that the Constitution is a “living document,” hence, not to be taken literally, is akin to asserting that the Ten Commandments are really just “Ten Suggestions.” It also affords proponents of the “living document” theory latitude to pick and choose cafeteria-style, which rights established by the Constitution are legitimate or applicable today. Some like freedom of speech for themselves but not for those they disagree with, for example. And some absolutely detest the freedom to bear arms.

Judicial precedent and daily judicial decisions are judged against the basic principles and rights specified by the Constitution and statute to provide applicability to today’s milieu. In that way alone is it a “living document.” Statute is how the fundamental principles of the Constitution are codified in a changing social structure, but the Constitution provides the baseline.

James Madison, regarded as the Father to the Constitution, said, “There are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations.” We have witnessed this over the generations since the founding of the country, and we see that process of “silent encroachment” of government on the freedom of the people accelerated over the past few years in a way never before witnessed. We see government dictating terms of property ownership, dictating terms of access to health care, and dictating terms of energy use and private consumption, for starters.

The Constitution is not a “living” document. The Founders were specific in their language and did not mince words. They meant what they said. It was written precisely to prevent the incursion of government into our lives to the extent that we see it occurring today proving it is not an anachronism. It is a social contract to assure and guarantee fundamental freedom and liberty for all generations of Americans, and its relevance is reasserted every time a new official is sworn into office, vowing to “uphold and defend the Constitution.”

The survivability of our republic is dependent upon a knowledgeable and informed electorate, committed to liberty. We need to be intimately familiar with our founding documents, especially the Constitution, and hold those accountable who seek to subvert the freedoms of those who are intended to have ultimate power in this republic: We the People!

AP award winning columnist Richard Larsen is President of Larsen Financial, a brokerage and financial planning firm in Pocatello, Idaho, and is a graduate of Idaho State University with degrees in Political Science and History and former member of the Idaho State Journal Editorial Board.  He can be reached at [email protected].

 

Post to Twitter Post to Facebook Post to Reddit Post to Technorati

Conservative Daily News allows a great deal of latitude in the topics contributors choose and their approaches to the content. This is due to our approach that citizens have a voice, not only the mass media. Readers will likely not agree with every contributor or every post, but find reasons to think about the topic and respond with comments. We value differing opinions as well as those that agree. Opinions of contributors are their own and do not necessarily reflect those of CDN, Anomalous Media or staff. Click here if you'd like to write for CDN.
Put This Story in your Circles and Share with your Friends

Comments (7)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Derrell Poole says:

    Thanks Richard. I love discussions of common sense about the Constitution. Generally when someone claims to be a student of the Constitution (Obama, Feinstein, etc.) I interpret that to mean they have been looking for ways to subvert it.

    To your excellent points I would like to add a few that you touched on but that perhaps need a little more thought, particularly the moral issues of our society. I’ve been reading Mike Huckabee’s book DO THE RIGHT THING and the cows are sorta coming home. The battles over the 2nd Amendment and the “mandate” the progressives believe they have holds a certain natural logic to them because WE have allowed a void to develop in the fabric of our society.

    It is human nature to be free and the entire document (Constitution) is about protecting unalienable rights of the individual. Well, government has a nature too, not surprisingly, founded in the same human nature that provides us with our unalienable rights. This doesn’t provide to government unalienable rights – government is always “collective” in orientation. But it is a set of principles founded when we became Civilized. This set of principles is fundamentally in opposition to those recognized as Individual Rights. Like the poles of a magnet.

    Government is compelled to control. That control Nature of government seems to be manifest in two ways. First, over the last few hundred years, our government has been filling a void left by our increasing failure to keep our individual RESPONSIBILTIES toward freedom; that is to, “do the right thing”. As a people we have not been very responsible. Our society is quite ambiguous about morals. We murder 56 million unborn children over the last 40 years and yet we are shocked and repulsed by the killing of 20 born children and numerous adults as well! On an individual basis people come to believe they have the “right” to violate other people’s rights simply because they can “get away” with it – even legally! They carry on in excess behaviors, in unnatural behaviors and in manners that polarize our society against clear, black and white, right and wrong!

    The second way govern takes over more control is by subversion and then outright confiscation of rights. This is the role of the Despot. Things get so bad and out of control that, well, the government just takes control. Somebody has to or we are no longer civilized, right?

    We have to stop this! This isn’t a one – two punch type fix. There is no fast food style MacAnswer! We have to teach a whole generation to do the right thing. Not for some god. Not for some eternal reward. But because it is the right answer to a simple formula; In order to be free, take the responsibility to Govern yourselves as justly as you would wish a government to govern you… so it won’t have to!

    Derrell Poole

  2. Jan Brown says:

    Richard, I couldn’t agree more. The (OUR) Constitution isn’t a living document, it is a document to ‘live by’…The threads that bind our Constituion are the same threads that bind patches of this beautiful quilt that blankets our Nation. Daniel Webster explains it as “guarding against the dangers of good intentions. There are men of all ages that mean to govern well, but they ‘mean to govern’. They promise to be good masters, but they ‘men to be masters.”…One of his fears was the extension of Executive powers….

    To those that do not ‘know’ or understand The Consitution & are too lazy & don’t wish to learn it’s bounty….just compare what life you have as an American to that of someone in Africa, Russia, Cuba or most any country of your choice that’s under a totalitarism rule….Choose either to live with the Constituional freedoms..or in.. slavery.

    Our founders knew the intoxicating sense of power & the corruption of man. Wisely they put in safe guards to contain it. The ONLY way they can be effective is that we STOP Snipping at the threads that hold our Country together & above all others.

    I know that to have rainbows, we must have rain. That doesn’t mean we also must flood the streets or abandon our principals, which have done a pretty darn good job for several centuries now.

  3. RRRoark says:

    In “A note I sent to all my comgresscritters today” poted to my blog on April 13th, I said:

    Goal number 29 of the CPUSA in 1963 began, “Discredit the American Constitution by calling it inadequate, old-fashioned, out of step with modern needs”.I really do not like hearing it from US elected officials.

    • Derrell Poole says:

      I wasn’t aware of that one. Thanks.

    • I appreciate you making the (philosophically) necessary connection between the CPUSA and what we hear today from statists, mostly of the Democrat variety. They do everything they can to discredit, circumvent, and trample the codified rights enumerated in our founding documents. If we are not ourselves well informed, and attentive to their tactics, we can be mollified into acquiescence to their propaganda and their tactics, thereby becoming complicit in the erosion of our founding principles.

      Well said, my friend!