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.”
