June 4, 2024
Why is it that those on the left — liberals, socialists, Marxists, “progressives” — think that the ideas expressed in our laws and the Constitution are just suggestions, and their interpretation by judges and others in positions of authority can vary with the wind?
Do they really believe that words mean whatever anyone wants them to mean at any given time as political fervor and social preferences dictate?
Well, yes, many of them believe that whatever their political motivation is at any moment is enough to justify changing the meaning of a law or a feature of our Constitution that was written years, decades, or even centuries ago.
Those written words were just ideas of the moment, they suggest, and everyone knows that ideas and circumstances change as time progresses. Therefore, the meaning of laws and the Constitution must be flexible enough to be understood as they want to understand them at any point in time.
And they want to get rid of anyone in any position who believes the contrary: that laws and the Constitution mean what they meant when they were created, and will continue to hold that meaning until they are properly changed by the appropriate processes.
In order to get the world organized to their liking, the leftists want to remove anyone from their official position that doesn’t follow the popular ideological line. Supreme Court Justices, for example, who follow the law and Constitution as written. They are “originalists,” or “judicial conservatives.”
Like umpires and referees, judges, justices, magistrates, etc., must not take sides in their work. They must not change the rules of the game during the game. They have the duty to apply the laws and terms of the Constitution as they were intended when created, without applying political or ideological bias.
That point is frequently missed by some observers who instead want their personal beliefs to prevail in such matters, despite what the intent of the measure in question may be.
But the interpretations of our Constitution and existing law must be based upon the circumstances that prevailed at the time they were created, and that those circumstances were why these laws and Constitutional provisions were created to begin with.
If the original circumstances that were the basis of a law or a feature of the Constitution no longer exist, if things have changed substantially, then the law can be repealed, or the Constitution can be amended as needed. But until those actions take place, the laws and Constitution must be followed as written, and as intended. The leftists prefer to consider the U.S. Constitution a “living document,” the meanings of which ebb and flow with the tide of time.
This concept was dealt with in an article by United States Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch titled, “Why Originalism Is the Best Approach to the Constitution.”
In this article, he addresses some specific instances. However, we will focus on the primary meaning: “Originalism teaches only that the Constitution’s original meaning is fixed; meanwhile, of course, new applications of that meaning will arise with new developments and new technologies.”
“Whether it’s the Constitution’s prohibition on torture, its protection of speech, or its restrictions on searches, the meaning remains constant even as new applications arise.”
And then, the crux of the debate: “Living constitutionalists often complain we can’t know the original understanding because the document’s too old and cryptic. Hardly. We figure out the original meaning of old and difficult texts all the time. Just ask any English professor who teaches Shakespeare or Beowulf.”
And he then describes the leftists’ preferred solution to the disagreement: “For when it comes to the social and political questions of the day they care most about, many living constitutionalists would prefer to have philosopher-king judges swoop down from their marble palace to ordain answers rather than allow the people and their representatives to discuss, debate, and resolve them. You could even say the real complaint here is with our democracy.”
In common parlance, they want the documents to say whatever they prefer them to say at any given moment. And those meanings can change with a new breath.
“Suppose originalism does lead to a result you happen to dislike in this or that case. So what,” Gorsuch asks? “The ‘judicial Power’ of Article III of the Constitution isn’t a promise of all good things. Letting dangerous and obviously guilty criminals who have gravely injured their victims go free just because an officer forgot to secure a warrant or because the prosecutor neglected to bring a witness to trial for confrontation seems like a bad idea to plenty of people.
“But do you really want judges to revise the Constitution to avoid those ‘bad’ results? Or do you believe that judges should enforce the law’s protections equally for everyone, regardless of how inefficient or unpopular or old the law might be? Regardless of who benefits today — the criminal or the police; the business or the employee; immigrants or ICE?”
Originalism focuses on process, not substance. The originalist concept protects the country from renegade “jurists” who will do whatever improves their political/ideological position. This is not what America is about.
No comments:
Post a Comment