Supreme Court Justice Anthony Scalia recently said, “The Constitution is not a living organism”
“It is a legal document, and it says what it says and doesn’t say what it does not say”. Well said Justice Scalia. The Founding Fathers who sought Gods’ wisdom were indeed led by Gods wisdom. Ask, and you shall receive.
Other court justices, attorneys, this administration, and other progressives and liberals refer to the Constitution as a “living organism”. That sounds good, if one does not know what that term means. So why is that bad for our Constitution, and the American people?
The “original” framers view of the Constitution held without debate. It generally meant that judges should interpret the Constitution as its framers intended it. A historian was quoted saying,” The Constitution has a fixed, uniform, permanent construction. It should be, not dependent upon the passions or parties of particular times, but the same yesterday, today and forever.” Judges should not stray from the text’s literal meaning”. Amen to that!
The Constitution’s framers must have been influenced by the James 5:12 scripture, let your yes be yes, and your no, no. They knew how critical what they wrote was going to be to our nation’s future. They put to ink exactly what they meant, no ands ifs, or buts. The Founding Fathers were clearly letting their yes be yes, and there was no mistaking their no. There are no gray areas in our Constitution. It is only modern self-righteous man who has muddied the waters, by twisting and perverting its original meanings to suit their whims.
So what does the progressive/liberal mean ‘living organism”? Here is the slippery slope of the living organism philosophy. Where the liberal idealists started to buck up against our country’s moral fabric revealed within our Constitution. So by the start of the 20th century, progressive liberal justices were arguing that the Constitution “must be considered in the light of our whole experience and not merely in that of what was said a hundred years ago, ” said Justice Holmes. He continues, “the law was not a matter of absolutes but of the felt necessities of the time, to be justified by how it contributes toward reaching a social end.”
That pile of psycho- babble sounds like if it feels good, then do it. We the almighty court justices interpreting The Constitution (as if it needs any interpretation) will argue a way to justify and legalize whatever the present society so desires. Therefore anything goes, based on a “whole experience”, and necessities of modern life. It is debauched liberals and atheist who have swayed the words and their meanings, in hopes to have courts declare legal their immoral inclinations. In order to justify the desires of their hearts, by not honoring the black and white lines established within the Constitution. Declaring the Constitution as an evolving moving organism, coerces one to apathy for personal responsibilities, and allows entry of every form of evil.
One case in point, the Obama zombies and their female fore fathers. That being the women libbers of the 1970’s, with their repulsive banshee battle cry ever trumpeting abortion rights. Now repackaged for the new millennium under the guise of women’s health care. Which in reality is same ole’, same ole’ on-demand and unlimited abortion, which has nothing to do with health.
What anti-Constitutionalists or the living-organism Constitution folks do not realize is, by twisting, re-adjusting, and tweaking this document to suit a special interest groups choices, will not give peace of mind. Just because actions are declared legal, does not make it moral. The human heart knows this well! Feelings of guilt will not subside, just by a Supreme Court decision.
“Let your Yes be yes, and your No be no, or you will be condemned. James 5:12