Living Document 10/22/08

 

The most recent NCDAS newsletter generated a number of comments regarding the term “Living Document”, a term I applied in describing how progressives choose to interpret the US Constitution.  

 

Based on your comments, I thought it would be helpful to describe the two diametrically opposing perceptions of the Constitution; Constitutionalists verses Reconstructionists.  Also, I felt it appropriate to scrutinize what role our founding fathers intended the Constitution to play in our system of government and how the progressive view would turn their anticipated system of government upside down.

 

Although I am certainly not a constitutional expert, I believe the two dissimilar viewpoints can easily be defined and differentiated.

 

Individuals who wish to maintain the balance of power in our three branches of government hold to the Constitutionalist theory.  Those who believe it is a living document and subject to interpretation and change are Reconstructionists.

 

According to constitutionalist theory, only the "people" are to make significant changes to the Constitution in accordance with the Article V amendment process.

 

Article Five of the United States Constitution <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Constitution>  describes the process whereby the Constitution may be altered. Such amendments may be proposed by the United States Congress <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Congress>  or by a national convention <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_to_propose_amendment_to_U.S._Constitution>  assembled at the request of the legislatures <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_legislature_(United_States)>  of at least two-thirds of the several states <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._state> .

 

Modern Reconstructionist theory advocates have a very different perspective.  To Reconstructionists, the Constitution reflects a set of conflicting ideals and notions.  The Constitution becomes intrinsically no different from, nor superior to, other law — a stark contrast to the Constitutionalist position.

 

In my opinion, the overriding dilemma our country faces when interpreting which viewpoint to consider falls within the Federal Courts, specifically the Supreme Court.  Our system of government was conceived and designed to promote and insure a balance of power between the three branches Judicial, Executive and Legislative.  No branch of government could practice supremacy when adjudicating societies concerns.  It should only interpret.

 

As a Constitutionalist, I adhere to the belief the essential qualities of the constitution are it’s sense of “supremacy and permanence” as stated by Alexander Hamilton.  That the courts have neither force nor will but merely judgment.  This is an important differentiation to comprehend, as today we have the Supreme Court often writing laws and not interpreting our laws.

 

The Reconstructionist believes the Supreme Court as an institution can no longer be described with any accuracy as a court, in the customary sense.  Unlike a court, its primary function is not judicial but legislative. It is a governing body in the sense that it makes the basic policy decisions of the nation, selects among the competing values of our society, and administers and executes the directions it chooses in political, social and ethical matters. The Constitutionalist believes our rights are granted by GOD.  Specifically expressing Americans underpinning is that of a Christian nation.  That if these rights are not granted by GOD, but if by man, then man can effectively remove or dismiss these inherent rights many of us hold so dear. 

 

The Reconstructionist considers it to be a theological document; one written by man and therefore subject to the whims of society.  In essence each subsequent generation writes its own Constitution; to become the major societal agency for reform.

 

We as a country have been blessed with liberty and democracy.
Thankfully our forefathers had the wisdom to recognize “that which man givith, man can taketh away”.  It is up to us, our generation to ensure liberty is preserved, that our laws are based on GOD given rights, not those defined by man. Shall we live our lives as citizens or subjects?

 

The constitution, its powerful philosophy of freedom / liberty and how steadfastly we embrace these principles will determine our future as a nation.

 

 

Wayne S. Richard
President/Founder
NCDAS