I’m not sure exactly what these folks are pledging to do. Are they living constitutionalists pledging fealty to the Constitution on the day they sign the pledge? Or some future Constitution the exact substance of which they don’t even know when they sign the pledge? Is each person pledging to their own Constitution which just doesn’t change to them? Unless, of course, they are all pledging to a Constitution that actually has a definite, knowable, unchanging substance — in which case I look forward to joining them in celebration of Justice Thomas and Justice Scalia’s service at the next Federalist Society convention.
Carrie Severino
September 16, 2011
More on the Living Constitutionalists’ ‘Pledge’
[People who “believe in a living constitution” haven’t thought things through. Do they also believe in “living contracts” where the terms of the contract change without all parties to the contract agree to the changes or even being notified that the contract no longer means what it says? To say, “we have a living constitution” means we have no constitution.—Joe]
They’re pledging to abide by their whims.
To a certain kind of generally left-leaning mind, nobility and greatness reside in the rhetorical formulas you use to congratulate yourself for whatever piddling contemptible verminry you happen to be engaged in at the moment.
Do you think Carrie believes that she and her husband/boyfriend have a “living” relationship? Can he downgrade “Love Honor and Cherish” to “Sleep with her best friend?”
I’ll bet that she doesn’t want that fundamental contract up for unilateral redefinition.
If a person can “re-interpret” the constitution every time someone has a passing whim, then it’s finished.
“Our peculiar security is in the possession of a written Constitution. Let us not make it a blank paper by construction.”
– Thomas Jefferson
@Sean, Read the quote and/or the article a little more closely. Carrie is on our side in this discussion.
So what is the opposite of those who believe in a “living Constitution”? Those who believe in a “dead Constitution”? What are amendments for if the Constitution can’t be changed?
@ubu52, The “opposite” is Originalism. Originalists don’t have a problem with using the amendment process. They just have a problem with those that want to interpret in a manner contrary to the original intent without going through the amendment process.
The “living contract” is exactly the analogy to use when explaining what the fuss is all about. I’m sure UBU52 and all the Senators, Congressmen, judges and others who believe in the malleability of what they call the “living constitution” are all for “original intent” when it comes to THEIR pension plan, or THEIR auto loan, or home mortgage. They would not stand for what they rightfull would see as interference with their contract for something they contracted for.
Somehow, when it is the states who have contracted, and formed an agreement which contains within it the method for modifying the contract, then all bets are off.
Oh, I’m all for a “Living Constitution”, Ubu52. When we stay true to the words written, and limit the powers of the Federal Government, the Constitution comes alive–and as it does so, it fosters freedom, which spurs prosperity. It is when we twist the meaning of the text, or ignore it altogether, so we could implement the fashionable Government Intervention of the Day, that the Constitution dies a horrible, writhing, screaming, tortured death.
I want a Living Constitution–a Constitution that everyone believes in, follows, and respects, especially the politicians–not one that is gutted, drawn-and-quartered, burned, and sacrificed on the alter of Progressive Expediency. A document ignored is no more alive than one that is lost and buried in time–or are you going to claim that the Hammurabi Code is alive and well, too?
When the Constitution dies, liberty is on its deathbed, and thus so is our Country and everything that made it glorious and worthwhile. And it is sick–just plain sick–that Progressives strangle the Constitution in the name of “we need a Living Constitution that could adjust to our (we’re-ok-with-tyranny) times”.