Dear Friends,
It seems to me, the argument between constitutional originalists and evolutionists, is actually about limited versus unlimited government. It pivots on the Enlightenment idea of constitutionalism and the meaning of originalist and constitutional evolutionist. In this context, any pick for Supreme court is of absolute importance, to safeguarding our liberty or shackling us in chains. Those who favor unlimited government will want a constitutional evolutionist. People who rather limited government and liberty will choose an originalist. So, we have a debate in the halls of congress, who should be on our Supreme Court, an originalist or evolutionist, and each politician’s stance shows whether he or she favors arbitrary rule and unlimited government, or they prefer limited government and liberty for the people.
The Enlightenment was the time when Constitutionalism became fully mature. Along with other radical reforms, like the scientific method, reason over authority, individualism, natural law and skepticism… which were all at their core, democratizing ideas. The Enlightenment took power from authority, split it up, and put that power in the hands of the people. This has directly led to the revolutionary advances in science, farming, our standard of living and the freedom many of us enjoy today. Many today argue, and teach our children in the public school system, that we need to escape the bonds of the Enlightenment and return to absolutism. They maintain that freedom is slavery, war is peace, killing a baby isn’t murder, fire needn’t burn and water no longer wets.
Constitutionalism is based on contract law. A constitution being a contract between the governed and the governors. It strictly lists the powers of the governors and the responsibilities of the governed as well as the limitations of both. This is based on skepticism. Skepticism that the governors will do as they say without a strong bond holding them to their word. Someone Pollianish might believe that everyone everywhere can be trusted, but a rational person understands that is not the case, and therefore is skeptic of another’s motives and plans. A constitution, a contract, is what the skeptical thinkers of the Enlightenment came up with, to hold the leaders to their word. In other words… limit government’s role, reach and growth.
A constitutional evolutionist is someone with the notion that a constitution must change with the times. It is the ethos of progressives. They argue that a constitution cannot be unchangeable it must evolve as times evolve. They say it is a “living breathing document,” in that it is dynamic, able to keep afoot in an uncertain world. While Originalism is the concept that a constitution should always be interpreted as the writers of the document intended… like any other contract. Because, the originalist argues, what good is a contract if one party can “evolve” it as they see fit? Especially if the other party is barred from any effect on it whatsoever. Clearly, any contract that can be manipulated for the benefit of one party over another, is only a means to deceive, and certainly not a normalizing document.
So we get back to that question of limited versus unlimited government. Originalism is the only path to limited government, since it holds the governors to the contract, and constitutional evolutionism must lead to unlimited government, since it allows the governors to amend the Constitution, (contract), any time they can corrupt five of nine Supreme Court justices. Which is a perversion of what the Supreme Court’s role is. The US Constitution created the Supreme Court, as a means to protect itself, not as a way for underhanded people to usurp power. Unfortunately, psychopaths have recognized that there are only political fetters holding them from absolute power, and are striving for that power. Constitutional evolutionism must be exposed for what it is… the sure path to oppression.
Sincerely,
John Pepin
