Liberals endorse the concept of the “living” Constitution
that says that the meaning of the Constitution evolves as society changes.
As would be expected these liberals believe that only rich
unelected liberal judges are capable of discerning just how the Constitution
has magically evolved. Unsurprisingly
all the changes that liberals see in the Constitution support liberal views.
We see that in the current debate over “anchor” babies. After all it’s clear that there was no intent by the Americans who passed the 14th Amendment to legalize any baby whose mother managed to enter the US just long enough to give birth. If that had been the case it wouldn’t have taken until 1924 for Congress to pass a law making Native Americans citizens. The objective of the 14th Amendment’s authors is very clear; ending the denial of civil rights to Black Americans by Democrat politicians in the South.
While supporters of the living Constitution declare that the Constitution must change with changing social situations for some reason many of the changes-- such as abortion and so called gay “marriage”-- have been unable to garner the support of the voters. That leads to the paradoxical situation of liberals declaring the Constitution has to change because society has changed when society has specifically rejected at the ballot box those changes liberals declare have occurred.
The reality is that when liberals say that the Constitution has to change to reflect changing times and values they mean changing liberal values not changing values on the part of the people as a whole.
We can see this in the abortion and gay “marriage” cases. In the case of abortion the Supreme Courts view of the “living” Constitution overthrew the laws of all 50 states, including the most liberal ones. Not even in liberal New York State had society embraced abortion at any time before birth and for any reason. In fact today, over 40 years later, only about one quarter of Americans endorse the Supreme Courts position. Clearly the Court was not reflecting the views of society in its discovery of abortion rights in the “living” Constitution.
The gay “marriage” case is even clearer. California, a hot bed of liberalism, had resoundingly voted to reject gay “marriage” as had many other states. Clearly society had not yet decided that gay “marriage” was a good thing but the liberals on the Supreme Court went with the liberal consensus and revised the meaning of the Constitution, which does not mention marriage.
In the case of immigration the situation might actually reflect the criteria espoused by liberals but in the exact opposite direction to what liberals want. Ignoring for a moment the obvious historical intent of the 14th Amendment it’s unclear if Americans cared about the Courts revision at the time it occurred back in 1982. However today it’s clear that most Americans don’t believe that sneaking across the border and then getting a free taxpayer paid for delivery in an American hospital confers citizenship on the criminal’s child.
Under the concept of the living Constitution however even if the intention of the authors and ratifiers of the 14th Amendment had been to grant citizenship to the children of illegals the changing societal consensus should lead the Court to declare that children of illegals are not citizens.
However since the whole “living” Constitution concept is merely a verbal sham to provide plausible deniability for judges engaged in rampant illegal and unconstitutional judicial law making none of the supporters of the “living” Constitution are arguing that the changing societal consensus on babies born to illegals means that the Constitution has changed.
Interestingly the Framers believed in a truly living Constitution that reflected the will of the people. Recognizing that over time the US might change the Framers provided a way for the people, as opposed to a few unelected rich and mostly white judges, to determine what the Constitution should mean. That process to amend and update the Constitution has been used on multiple occasions to fix problems where there was a change in societal consensus such as the ending the denial of civil rights by Democrat politicians to blacks, the right of women to vote, and the right of 18 year olds to vote.
The 14th Amendment is a great example of how the Constitution was amended to reflect the changing societal consensus that recognized that Blacks are just as human as whites. While that attitude has taken a much longer time to be accepted in the Democrat run South—change not occurring until the South became Republican—the 14th Amendment reflected the change in American society as a whole.
However liberals, bruised by the defeat of the so-called “equal” rights amendment, decided that it’s really too much bother to have to have the “living” Constitution follow the people. Instead the Constitution is to be used as a battering ram to change the societal consensus by redefining what is legal.
Liberals know that many Americans tend to equate moral truth with legality and hence by changing the Constitution liberals know that over time they can change attitudes.
This practice is similar to that used by Muslims to convert the masses of non-Muslims that were conquered by Muslim invaders. Make the law endorse something and condemn something else and over time the less committed people will change their views. While the coercion used by liberals has not historically been on par with Sharia law the recent drive to deny Christians who oppose gay “marriage” and abortion the right to own businesses shows that liberals are stepping up their game.
In the end those who say that the concept of citizenship for the children of illegals is not in the Constitution are 100% correct if one looks at what the Constitution actually says.
We see that in the current debate over “anchor” babies. After all it’s clear that there was no intent by the Americans who passed the 14th Amendment to legalize any baby whose mother managed to enter the US just long enough to give birth. If that had been the case it wouldn’t have taken until 1924 for Congress to pass a law making Native Americans citizens. The objective of the 14th Amendment’s authors is very clear; ending the denial of civil rights to Black Americans by Democrat politicians in the South.
While supporters of the living Constitution declare that the Constitution must change with changing social situations for some reason many of the changes-- such as abortion and so called gay “marriage”-- have been unable to garner the support of the voters. That leads to the paradoxical situation of liberals declaring the Constitution has to change because society has changed when society has specifically rejected at the ballot box those changes liberals declare have occurred.
The reality is that when liberals say that the Constitution has to change to reflect changing times and values they mean changing liberal values not changing values on the part of the people as a whole.
We can see this in the abortion and gay “marriage” cases. In the case of abortion the Supreme Courts view of the “living” Constitution overthrew the laws of all 50 states, including the most liberal ones. Not even in liberal New York State had society embraced abortion at any time before birth and for any reason. In fact today, over 40 years later, only about one quarter of Americans endorse the Supreme Courts position. Clearly the Court was not reflecting the views of society in its discovery of abortion rights in the “living” Constitution.
The gay “marriage” case is even clearer. California, a hot bed of liberalism, had resoundingly voted to reject gay “marriage” as had many other states. Clearly society had not yet decided that gay “marriage” was a good thing but the liberals on the Supreme Court went with the liberal consensus and revised the meaning of the Constitution, which does not mention marriage.
In the case of immigration the situation might actually reflect the criteria espoused by liberals but in the exact opposite direction to what liberals want. Ignoring for a moment the obvious historical intent of the 14th Amendment it’s unclear if Americans cared about the Courts revision at the time it occurred back in 1982. However today it’s clear that most Americans don’t believe that sneaking across the border and then getting a free taxpayer paid for delivery in an American hospital confers citizenship on the criminal’s child.
Under the concept of the living Constitution however even if the intention of the authors and ratifiers of the 14th Amendment had been to grant citizenship to the children of illegals the changing societal consensus should lead the Court to declare that children of illegals are not citizens.
However since the whole “living” Constitution concept is merely a verbal sham to provide plausible deniability for judges engaged in rampant illegal and unconstitutional judicial law making none of the supporters of the “living” Constitution are arguing that the changing societal consensus on babies born to illegals means that the Constitution has changed.
Interestingly the Framers believed in a truly living Constitution that reflected the will of the people. Recognizing that over time the US might change the Framers provided a way for the people, as opposed to a few unelected rich and mostly white judges, to determine what the Constitution should mean. That process to amend and update the Constitution has been used on multiple occasions to fix problems where there was a change in societal consensus such as the ending the denial of civil rights by Democrat politicians to blacks, the right of women to vote, and the right of 18 year olds to vote.
The 14th Amendment is a great example of how the Constitution was amended to reflect the changing societal consensus that recognized that Blacks are just as human as whites. While that attitude has taken a much longer time to be accepted in the Democrat run South—change not occurring until the South became Republican—the 14th Amendment reflected the change in American society as a whole.
However liberals, bruised by the defeat of the so-called “equal” rights amendment, decided that it’s really too much bother to have to have the “living” Constitution follow the people. Instead the Constitution is to be used as a battering ram to change the societal consensus by redefining what is legal.
Liberals know that many Americans tend to equate moral truth with legality and hence by changing the Constitution liberals know that over time they can change attitudes.
This practice is similar to that used by Muslims to convert the masses of non-Muslims that were conquered by Muslim invaders. Make the law endorse something and condemn something else and over time the less committed people will change their views. While the coercion used by liberals has not historically been on par with Sharia law the recent drive to deny Christians who oppose gay “marriage” and abortion the right to own businesses shows that liberals are stepping up their game.
In the end those who say that the concept of citizenship for the children of illegals is not in the Constitution are 100% correct if one looks at what the Constitution actually says.
But even if one denies that then the doctrine of the “living
“ Constitution, as it’s articulated as opposed to how it’s implemented, tells
us that the Constitution clearly rejects the concept of citizenship for the
children of illegals.
In fact if one is a true believer in the concept of the “living” Constitution one has to condemn the rigid and historical intent based reasoning of the Court in upholding citizenship for the children of illegals.
Of course as on most issues liberals don’t actually believe in what they say. Rather they use words in an Orwellian way to disguise their extremist anti-populist agenda.
When discussing this issue with people point out that whether one uses original intent or one uses the concept of the “living” Constitution the result is that the children of illegals are not citizens according to the Constitution.
Feel free to follow tom on Twitter
In fact if one is a true believer in the concept of the “living” Constitution one has to condemn the rigid and historical intent based reasoning of the Court in upholding citizenship for the children of illegals.
Of course as on most issues liberals don’t actually believe in what they say. Rather they use words in an Orwellian way to disguise their extremist anti-populist agenda.
When discussing this issue with people point out that whether one uses original intent or one uses the concept of the “living” Constitution the result is that the children of illegals are not citizens according to the Constitution.
Feel free to follow tom on Twitter
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment