ORIGINAL INTENT OF THE CONSTITUTION

Many liberals describe the constitution as a “living document.” They fabricated this term because if they said what they really believe, that the document means whatever they need it to mean in order to validate whatever ridiculous scheme or policy they come up with, well, that would just sound silly. This “living document” theory holds that the Constitution has to evolve with the changing times which allows for a new or contemporary interpretation. Take the second amendment: A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A liberal can read that and conclude that the federal government, at a minimum, has the authority to regulate all guns and even impose an outright ban if they deem it necessary. How is this possible? For liberals, the first part of the amendment: A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state is the operative phrase here. I'm sure liberals are positively giddy with the Framers use of the term “A well regulated militia.” If there is one thing liberals like, it's regulations. Regulation implies government involvement and “well regulated” connotes a lot of government involvement. And militia? Well, that was their army back then and now we have a huge military to protect us. We have no need for armed citizens. Of course, they are wrong on both counts. The militia and the Continental Army were two separate and distinct entities. The Second Continental Congress created the Continental Army in June of 1775. Long before this, local militias were being formed amongst the individual colonies. In the lexicon of the revolutionary period “well regulated” was understood to mean efficient or effective as opposed to government authorized and controlled. The concept that government has a monopoly on the legitimate use of force was not something the Founders subscribed to. Having just recently extricated themselves from the tyranny of King George, the Founders had a profound fear and mistrust of a strong central government. The dirty little secret that liberals just cannot accept and are loath to even contemplate is that militias were never intended to function under the auspices of the federal government. They were intended as the final check on oppression, whether foreign or domestic, and to do so in a “well regulated” manner depended on the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

Like many living things, the “living constitution” can sometimes be made to do tricks. A favorite of the lefties' is the assertion that the constitution provides for a “wall of separation between church and state.” This trick works particularly well with young people, who after after 12 years of public schooling, are well versed in the plight of the polar bear and have a profound appreciation for the moral superiority of organic gardening but know nothing of American history in general or our founding principles in particular. Many liberals actually think “separation between church and state” is in the constitution. It's not. It is a metaphor used by Thomas Jefferson in a letter to some Baptists in Connecticut. It is amazing to me how liberals are perfectly willing to ignore 99.9 percent of everything Jefferson said but will take one line from an obscure letter and use it to twist the intent of the First Amendment. But again, they get it all wrong. Looking at Jefferson's tenure as governor of Virginia, it is reasonable to conclude that Jefferson's wall should be looked at in the context of federalism. Jefferson placed the federal government on one side of the wall with state governments and religious institutions on the other. Jefferson understood that the First Amendment was meant to limit the federal government, not religion. Just as the First Amendment restricts the government from messing with the press, it also restricts them from messing with religion. That does not mean that the press can't question the government or that religious beliefs can't influence government policy.

Speaking of Thomas Jefferson, I consider myself a man of ordinary understanding and I subscribe to this bit of Jeffersonian wisdom: “Laws are made for men of ordinary understanding and should, therefore, be construed by the ordinary rules of common sense. Their meaning is not to be sought for in metaphysical subtleties which may make anything mean everything or nothing at pleasure.”

TOLERANCE FOR 1ST AMENDMENT

Thomas Jefferson said: “Mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.” It took a man so extreme and dangerous as Barack Hussein Obama to do it, but I think the silent majority of reasonable, hard working and virtuous Americans has awakened. We have begun the process of abolishing the forms to which we have become accustomed. Namely, Liberals running amok.

When Dan Cathy, president of the fast food chain Chick-fil-A, stated his not-at-all-extreme belief in the biblical definition of the family and marriage (a position held by Obama until just recently when his beliefs “evolved”), gay rights activists were infuriated. As always, when a liberal constituency group is offended, liberal politicians, waxing indignant, are sure to follow. The Democrat mayor of Boston made a public threat not to allow Chick-fil-A to open a franchise in that city. He wrote a letter to Cathy laced with invective and insults. Some time after this the mayor must have taken 10 seconds out of his busy schedule to read the First Amendment. Imagine his shock and horror! He has subsequently backed off his threat. “I can't do that. That would be interference to his rights to go there,” said the mayor. Quick study, that lefty.

Then we have Chicago mayor Rahm Emanual who said: “Chick-fil-A's values are not Chicago values. They're not respectful of our residents, our neighbors and our family members. And if you're gonna be part of the Chicago community, you should reflect Chicago values.” Apparently the mayor believes Louis Farrakhan, leader of the Nation of Islam, reflects Chicago values because he just welcomed the anti-Semite into his city. But then Islam is super tolerant of gays. Along with a local alderman, Emanual is determined to block Chick-fil-A from expanding in Chicago. The mayor apparently sees no First Amendment issue in using his power to punish speech he disagrees with. This is not surprising as Emanual was a big wheel in the Obama administration and he is undoubtedly still exempted from constitutional constraints, as the whole Obama administration seems to be.

Well, those reasonable, hard working and virtuous Americans I mentioned decided enough was enough. Whether motivated by their belief in traditional marriage or their belief that the constitution matters, a “buycot” was organized and on one day thousands upon thousands of people made a point of going to a Chick-fil-A. I don't know the actual numbers and the major media has no desire to cover this story but Chick-fil-A has reported that the effort resulted in their biggest day ever!

These are Americans of all stripes. They are not protesters by nature. They are too busy working. They have just had enough of being lectured to by liberal elites. They are tired of being called greedy, racist, bigoted, homophobic or just plain haters when they are anything but. They are the most compassionate, generous, hard-working, responsible and tolerant people in the world. But the small, vocal minority representing all manner of the perpetually offended, along with their political allies, don't want mere tolerance. Oh sure, that's what they say. They say we need to be tolerant of Muslims but what they really want is for us to celebrate Islam. They say we should be compassionate to those on welfare when they really want us to help them promote dependency. They say we need to be tolerant of homosexuals but treating them with the same dignity and respect we treat everyone just doesn't cut it for them. We have to abandon our own long held traditions and beliefs and, if need be, abdicate tenets of our faith.

The Democrat Party has been adopting an ever more radical agenda for years now. I think many Americans are now starting to realize just how extreme the Democrat Party, in general, and President Obama, in particular, truly are. I am feeling more confident about success in November.