Tea Party language calls for "smaller government". Smaller government means nothing, because theoretically it could still include Medicare, Social Security, income taxes, death taxes, and other forms of government power over the individual that was never "originally intended."
Indeed, if the Founders had known then what they could not have known without omniscience, they would have crafted a Constitution that would not allow for the idea of a "living document."
Taken as a "living document" progressives and liberals have been allowed to abrogate the provisions of the Constitution that otherwise would cause the necessity for Amendments. A "living document" needs no Amendments. It can be twisted to meet the needs of whatever political party has power.
"Originalism is the view that the Constitution has a fixed and knowable meaning established at the time of its enactment." U. of San Diego School of Law The Tenth Amendment tells us that the powers not delegated to the United States nor prohibited to the States themselves are either reserved to the States, or to the people. In theory this means each individual ought to have the freedom to do whatever he or she pleases so long as it does not abrogate the sovereignty of any other individual within the definition of such sovereignty.
Unfortunately, there is little in the Ten Amendments to guarantee such sovereignty.
Unfortunately, there is little in the Ten Amendments to guarantee such sovereignty.
"Individual sovereignty was not a peculiar conceit of Thomas Jefferson: It was the common assumption of the day..." wrote Joseph J. Ellis.
The separation of church and state came to be part of our law, not by being written in the Constitution, but by being a part of the national debate during the writing of the Constitution, by being accepted as a "common assumption of the day."
This is Originalism and that is how it operates; the Jurist behind the bench reaches back into the history of our Founding, discovers what the Founders wanted even if they failed as men to include it in the Constitution, and then he incorporates that Original thinking into his decision.
We cannot blame the Founders for their lack of omniscience. We must look to what their intentions were and accept them as the guiding principle behind the document being judged.
If the decision of the Jurist does not match the needs of the people or of society as it exists today, it is then up to our Legislative branches to write the laws that will meet our needs--but those laws must also meet the Original Intent of the Founders, or we must create an Amendment to meet the current need.
© FAMN LLC (MI)
The idea of the Constitution being a "living document" is preposterous. If that was the case, no contract would be valid. The Constitution is a contract pure and simple. The intent of which is remarkably clear and on those rare occasions that it isn't, we have the Federalist Papers to to elucidate. If something isn't touched upon in the Constitution, it likely should be outside the purview of government.
ReplyDelete