After decades of being stretched out of shape by liberals, America’s Constitution is like a rubber band that is ready to break. Consequently, it will be important that the next president be someone who respects the Constitution and is willing to do what is necessary to protect its sovereignty and integrity. America’s next president will have to be willing to appoint strict constructionists to the bench at all levels and provide the leadership necessary to win approval of their appointments in the Senate. As he has demonstrated repeatedly, that person is not Barack Obama.
The United States is more than just a geographic location on a map. It is a set of ideas—ideas captured eloquently by Thomas Jefferson when he wrote: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed…” Precisely how the government of the United States is to be “constituted among men” and how the government is to derive its “just powers from the consent of the governed” is set forth in the Constitution. Unfortunately, liberal interpretations of the Constitution have slowly but steadily transformed it into a document its drafters would not even recognize.
The Constitution has been so radically transformed by leftwing judicial activism that the government Abraham Lincoln said was “of the people, by the people, and for the people” has become a government of the state, by the state, and for the state. If the next president fails to reverse this trend, America will no longer resemble the great experiment envisioned by the Founders.
Leftwing media outlets are quick to criticize conservative candidates who profess to be strict constructionists as opposed to “living Constitution” advocates. Those who believe the Constitution should be a living document that blows in the breeze of societal change just want to be able to make it say whatever is convenient for them at any given moment in time. Living Constitution advocates have no respect for the meaning of the words written by the drafters of the Constitution. The strict constructionist point of view, on the other hand, protects the integrity of the Constitution by anchoring Americans to the original meaning of the words and protecting them from the ever-changing whims of societal fancy. It also protects the country from liberal judges who like to legislate from the bench.
Words are powerful things. They have meaning. The only way to properly interpret the Constitution is in accordance with the original meaning of the words in the document. Allowing liberals to use meanings they have purposefully distorted to distract and deceive is a dangerous course. Consider just a few words that liberals have coopted for their own purposes. To be “gay” originally meant to be happy. It now means to be homosexual. “Choice” originally meant selecting an option from among two or more options. It now means to the right kill an unborn child. Wetlands used to be called swamps. Now they are places of worship for radical environmentalists. Applying the concept of original meaning to the Constitution will take away one of the left’s most treasured strategies for deceiving the public: precisely what needs to be done and the sooner the better.