, , , , , , ,

This, gentle readers, will be a brief article, because the topic is as simple as it is contentious: how the Constitution–and the law–must be interpreted.

This is one of the primary issues dividing our nation, and one that could have a role in leading to a second civil war. Democrat/Socialist/Communists see the courts in general, and the Supreme Court in particular, as super legislatures with all legislative power vested in from one to five–a Supreme Court majority–unelected, unaccountable federal judges.  They want to confirm only D/S/C judges who will ignore the law and the Constitution, who think the Constitution a “living” document, to be interpreted–or ignored–to give them any policy they cannot obtain through the legitimate legislative process.

To this end, new “rights” are to be discovered hiding in emanations and penumbras, between the lines, under the ink, and out of thin air.  And when no such rights can be tortured into existence, the Constitution and law are entirely ignored and what every D/S/C knows in their heart ought to be, because they’re morally and intellectually superior, is made to be.  Powers expressly delegated to the executive are ignored and suppressed, as are rights reserved to the people.  D/S/Cs want judges to be supreme judicial/legislative beings, but only so long at they decide cases the right–Left–way.

This is why they fought so hard against Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Neal Gorsuch.  They belong to a school of legal thought known as Originalism.  D/S/Cs hate that–and you, gentle readers.  They hate you most of all.

Let us, however, take a moment to briefly explore Originalism, as Fox News reports:

Neal Gorsuch

In an exclusive interview, Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch gave Fox News some insight into how he and his clerks handle the weight of public opinion while serving on the nation’s highest court.

Fox News host Shannon Bream had asked Gorsuch whether he let public perception influence his work.

‘I tell my law clerks I have two rules — only two rules — if you follow them, you’re going to be just fine,’ he said. ‘Rule number one: Don’t make it up — follow the law. Rule number two: when everybody else around you is yelling at you, asking you to make it up and condemning you for not making it up, refer to rule number one.’

What radicalism!  Imagine that: following the law!  Not making things up!?  Madness!  How can we progress if we have to play obey some silly Constitution and laws?

Gorsuch, an originalist, has embraced a judicial philosophy that limits Constitutional rights to those outlined during the nation’s founding and insists that additions to the document should come through the consent of the American people.

‘Originalism says the rights of the Constitution that were given in 1789 are the rights you enjoy today and they can never be taken — and if you want to add to them, we the people add to them,’ Gorsuch told Bream.

But wait a minute: we can add to rights?!  We’re not stuck with those written in 1789?  How might that be?  Oh, right: amending the Constitution.

Left-leaning advocates have often pushed a judicial philosophy that supposes the founders couldn’t have foreseen circumstances that might alter the meaning of the text they initially wrote.

When Bream asked Gorsuch about that argument, he called it ‘baloney.’ ‘I think the Constitution is one of the greatest documents in all of human history and deserves our respect — and if you want to change it, don’t ask five people in Washington to change it for you,’ he said, referring to the slim majority needed for Supreme Court decisions.

Something I often tell my students is that times change, but people don’t.  The Founders well understood human nature and the temptations of unchecked power, and they affirmed to Jane and Joe Average, Normal American the right to chart their own, collective and individual destinies, and in so doing, limited the power of government and the parasites that would steal those rights.

That’s also what D/S/Cs hate. That’s what they want to change. That’s what court packing schemes are all about.  They want judges–their judges–to tell us what we’re allowed to think, say, own and do, and how much of our money–they think it’s really theirs–we’re allowed to keep.  They know very well the Founders were right, they had their number centuries before D/S/Cs were born, because times change, but despots never do.  They really hate that too.

CBN.com adds detail from their interview with Justice Gorsuch:

Gorsuch addressed the ‘living Constitution’ and clarified that having a dynamic meaning or a sense that the Constitution changes with time is illogical.

‘You know, the living Constitution is going to take your rights away and it’s going to add ones that aren’t there – we have a written Constitution. It’s about honoring the words the people chose to adopt. What are the first three words of the Constitution? It’s ‘We the people,’ not ‘We the states,’ not ‘We the nine old judges,’ he added.

But wasn’t Gorsuch–like Kavanaugh–going to single handedly destroy the republic?  Wasn’t he going to take away everyone’s rights?  Isn’t Roe v. Wade already overturned?  How does “we the people,” and preserving constitutional liberties rather than ignoring them and making up law out of thin air comport with D/S/C hysteria?  D/S/Cs hate that kind of judicial humility and honor, but they surely love humiliating normal Americans.

Originalism has regained its place at the table of constitutional interpretation, and textualism in the reading of statutes has triumphed. And neither one is going anywhere on my watch,’ Gorsuch proclaimed.

There, gentle readers, is one of the fundamental deciding issues of the 2020 election, which, if decided rightly, may just stave off unnecessary conflict.  Maybe identifying which candidate and political party’s every solution to problems, real and nonexistent, involves taking away the money, prosperity, standard of living and liberty of normal Americans might help?  Voting against them might help even more.