From Campaign For Liberty:
So, how is it that while the people of the states expressly forbade the federal government from interfering with the internal affairs of the states the federal government can now control nearly every facet of life within the states and the states supposedly can do absolutely nothing about it? Most attorneys who think they know so much about America’s history and the US Constitution would say, “The United States Supreme Court is given the power to say what the Constitution means and that over the years, they have interpreted Congress’ power to reach the internal affairs of a State.” It is the “living Constitution” idea, simultaneously coupled with nationalistic doctrine, which proclaims that the actual meaning of the Constitution can change over time, and that such change is constitutional and does not deny the people their freedom protected under the compact of the Constitution. Interestingly, the “living Constitution” idea is only used when it promotes a constitutional “construction” that expands and empowers the federal government and neuters the State governments. The “living Constitution” idea (advanced by the British Parliament) in fact is the very notion that caused America’s War for Independence. (Claude Halstead Van Tyne, The Causes of the War of Independence, Volume 1, [Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1922], 235, 237)
The ludicrous proposition of a “living Constitution” begs numerous critical questions involving the very foundation of a free society, not the least of which is this: If the meaning of the Constitution can change over time, why did the Constitution’s framers spend nearly five months debating which words should be placed in the Constitution? More than that, why would the framers be so emotionally, mentally, intellectually and intensely involved in the question of what form of government we will have: national or federal?
The only way someone could possibly call the Constitution a living document is to say that since it can be amended, it is a living document. The idea of someone interpreting what it means in a newer, modern, and more updated way is simply wordplay to get what they want.
Ex: How could we legalize redistribution of wealth? Well, all they have to say is “I’m not stealing this from you, I’m giving this to them.” Let’s be honest here: Our Constitution says what it means and means what it says; there is no “Bible code” or hidden message in between the lines. It is specific enough to designate specific powers to Congress. These powers are not polite suggestions of things they should consider, but the end all, be all limits to what they can do. Any law or attempt to make Congress have any say in anything other than that is illegal and should be prosecuted as such.Published in