James Madison, principal author of the U.S. Constitution and often called the "Father of the Constitution". Said this:
"I entirely concur in the propriety of resorting to the sense in which the Constitution was accepted and ratified by the nation. In that sense alone it is the legitimate Constitution. And if that is not the guide in expounding it, there may be no security for a consistent and stable, more than for a faithful exercise of its powers. If the meaning of the text be sought in the changeable meaning of the words composing it, it is evident that the shape and attributes of the Government must partake of the changes to which the words and phrases of all living languages are constantly subject. What a metamorphosis would be produced in the code of law if all its ancient phraseology were to be taken in its modern sense.
The idea of a "living, changing" Constitution was repugnant to Madison. The Constitution is the foundation for our liberty. If the foundation is "living" or shifting according to the political whims of the time, it will crumble and crack.
The Christian holy writings speak of a time when Jesus compared two foundations, those of sand and those of stone. A house built on sand would quickly fall, whereas a house built on the rock could withstand storms and other calamities.
We have now placed our Constitution on the shifting sand of "living constitutional analysis", which essentially means that we can interpret the Constitution to mean whatever we want it to mean. Kind of a Cheshire Cat approach to government.
This is the sole reason why America is in decline. We now have a "living" Constitution. It's funny, it wasn't until the 1920s that we noticed the Constitution was living. I wonder why?
It might be because the people voted for a fraud in the 17th amendment. Can you imagine how different things would be if states had a say in the laws passed by Congress? Well, the first thing you would notice is that the 9th and 10th amendments to the Constitution would still be strong.
But once we opened the Senate to popular vote, we paved the way for limitless government expansion. States now had no recourse to policies from Washington which forced them to behave in a particular manner, or expend funds on projects not desired by the people of that state. So now the doors were wide open to enact legislation, and buy votes through government giveaways.
Well, we still had that pesky Constitution in the way, so in the 1920s, legal scholars began advancing this notion that the Constitution was a "living" document, meant to change with the times. Of course, what they meant was, we have to get the constitution out of the way so we can spend all we want.
Here's what we have now, courtesy of our "living" constitution. A far overreacheingof the federal government into nearly all aspects of a person's daily life. Fewer and fewer decisions being made at the state level. Government now believes it is the grantor of rights, not their protector.
I've already posted quotes from CJ John Marshall, the shaper of constitutional jurisprudence, and there was no room for a "living" constitution in his opinions. No, the idea behind a "living" constitution is simply that it is easier to manipulate, and the effect is to simply nullify the constitution.
The Constitution was not written as a set of guidelines or ideals. It was written to RESTRICT the power of the federal government to only those enumerated in the Constitution itself. Well, we know that part is dead.
Ironic, isn't it? That as the Constitution becomes more alive, the deader it is.
US Constitution
