An Ol' Broad's Ramblings
Fred on the Huckster’s Comment
The Constitution is Not a “Living, Breathing Documentâ€
This morning I heard that one of the other candidates commented that the Constitution is a “living, breathing document.â€
Frankly, I assumed this came from Senator Clinton or Senator Obama. It is identical to what Al Gore said when he was running for President in 2000, when he said he would look for judges “who understand that our Constitution is a living, breathing document, that it was intended by our founders to be interpreted in the light of the constantly evolving experience of the American people.â€
Imagine my surprise when I learned that this statement actually came from my opponent, Governor Huckabee, in an interview with CNN this morning. Now I know Governor Huckabee was talking about amending the Constitution, but I don’t think he understood that he was using code words that support judicial activism.
He does not appear to understand that reliance on the notion that the Constitution is a living, breathing document is precisely the kind of wrong-headed thinking about the Constitution that gave us Roe v. Wade, which legalized abortion across our nation, and Lawrence v. Texas, which decriminalized sodomy.
I do not believe the Constitution is a living, breathing document. I am committed to appointing strict constructionist judges to the bench if I am elected President, strict constructionists who believe the Constitution has a fixed meaning that can be applied to cases that come before the courts today. They do NOT believe the Constitution is a “living, breathing document,†whose meaning, constantly changing with the sifting sands of our culture, can be determined and applied by unelected judges.
I fear that this loose language about our Constitution calls into question Governor Huckabee’s appreciation and understanding of the issue of judicial activism and raises questions as to what kind of judges he would appoint were he to become President.
The first time I ever heard that phrase about the Constitution, I was somewhat taken aback. It came from my own daughter, aka ‘brat’. I had NO idea what she was talking about. I suppose all the variety of people she had met up to that time had a greater influence on her than I thought.
Sadly, the Constitution has been twisted and molded to suit those who don’t much care for the idea of “G-d given”. Â And now it seems Huckleberry isn’t even consistent in how he sees this essential document?
Letter to George Washington From Thomas Jefferson, January 4, 1786: “This…plan.”
I am certainly not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and constitutions. But laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors.
Not that I am a fan of judicial activism, but even the Founding Fathers intended the Constitution to grow and change with the times.
The founding fathers, in their infinite wisdom, of course realized that times do, indeed, change. That is why they set a specific method to change the Connstitution. It is called amendment. They definitely did not envision some unelected judicial activist changing it to suit his/her preference. There are only two ways to change the exact wording and, hence, the meaning of the document. I do not think that this has changed in the 40 or so years since my last civics class.
No, I don’t think it has, but you’d never know it to hear a lot of the very loud and bitter folks talk.
The bottom line is that no one else seems
to understand the Constitution like Fred.
All the other candidates have their own
left leaning interpretations. Fred has
got to hang in there for the long haul.