Defending The Constitution

As one might expect, I sometimes engage in political discourse with some of my liberal friends (yes, I do have some), and quite often during those discussions we find ourselves debating the constitutionality of various liberal positions. In virtually every case, these liberals are woefully ignorant of the Constitution, which of course explains their ability to hold the political views that define them as liberals.

Typically when I ask them to cite the particular section of the Constitution that gives the federal government the authority it must have relative to the issue at hand, a vague reference to the “general welfare” clause is the best they can do. More often than not, they resort to claiming that the Constitution was written in different times in different circumstances, and that it wasn’t meant to be interpreted literally. Taking position of course, means that they have conceded that the Constitution really does not support their position and that the desired action is outside the lawful authority of the federal government. Sadly, most of them aren’t dissuaded by that knowledge.

I remember one such conversation with our family doctor, who supported Obamacare. When I pointed out the fact that the plan was unconstitutional, she asked “Does that really matter?” Prior to our discussion about Obamacare, she had been complaining to me about a neighbor who was trying to build a fence several yards on her side of their common property line. Sadly, she didn’t see the correlation between her neighbor infringing on her private property and the government infringing on her rights. At that point, I knew we needed to find a new family doctor.

This notion that the Constitution shouldn’t be “interpreted literally” is one that is almost as ridiculous as it is dangerous. Unfortunately, we often let the liberals spout the line without immediately challenging the assertion and nipping it in the bud. For the record, legal documents are written by people who spent many years in school learning how to write them in very precise language for the very reason that they are intended to be ‘interpreted’ literally. The reason we go to that much effort is that these legal documents must comply with laws that are written in very precise language because they are intended to be complied with literally. Would you feel comfortable going in front of a judge with the defense that you didn’t interpret the law literally?

This being the case would it then be reasonable to believe, as our leftist friends would suggest, that our entire precisely written legal system is based upon a nebulous document that is to be left open to ‘interpretation’? Of course not, that would be as silly as building a finely engineered skyscraper atop a mound of shifting sand. Naturally the left likes the idea because it frees them to implement their extra-constitutional programs.

The fact is however, that our founding fathers wrote the Constitution in very precise language because they were all quite familiar with the perils of a tyrannical government and knew full well the tendency for government to expand its control over the people. These learned men intended for the Constitution to be read rather than interpreted. All too often, we have Supreme Court justices who subscribe to the liberal idea that their job is to interpret the Constitution, when in fact their job is to read the Constitution and determine if the law in question complies. Hamilton addressed this very notion in Federalist Paper No. 81, where he said: "…there is not a syllable in the plan under consideration which directly empowers the national courts to construe the laws according to the spirit of the Constitution."

They also knew full well that times would change, which is why they provided a mechanism by which to amend the Constitution as deemed appropriate by the people living in those times. That mechanism is deliberately slow and cumbersome, requiring the expressed consent of a wide majority of the people to make even the smallest alteration to the document. To suggest that the opinion of five unelected people is sufficient to change the meaning of the words written in the Constitution flies in the face of all we know about the intent of our founding fathers. In 1819 Thomas Jefferson wrote "The Constitution...is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary which they may twist and shape into any form they please."

Those who desire to have a government that controls every aspect of our lives would like for us to follow their views on the Constitution, and it is our duty as citizens to resist and counter this lie every time it is told. It is just this type of lie that Jefferson warned us about when he said, "Freedom is lost gradually from an uninterested, uninformed, and uninvolved people".