The U.S. Constitution, according to its original understanding and intent, left almost every conceivable social and political issue entirely to the states. So why, now, are issues such as abortion, school prayer, homosexual sodomy, state criminal procedure, contraception, capital punishment, state legislature apportionment, school busing, flag burning, pornography and, of course, Florida’s outcome in the 2000 presidential election, all decided for us by unaccountable, unelected federal judges?

And why does the president think he can do whatever he wants? Why does Congress think it can legislate in areas reserved to the states by the Tenth Amendment?

Why, basically, are we living under a system that we never agreed to live under?

The current dogma of a “living, breathing” Constitution, a wretched doctrine in which our system is supposedly adaptable to changing times through “interpretation,” is the answer to these questions. The Constitution, however, is supposed to have a fixed meaning, alterable only by the people through the amendment process.

Our founders turned to written constitutions because they realized that the British system — an unwritten set of agreements, traditions and understandings — offered no protection from arbitrary actions made by Parliament and the king.

The main purpose behind any written constitution is to place a limit on the types of actions government officials can take; to prevent them from doing whatever they want to do to you. A “living, breathing” constitution is completely impotent at this intended purpose because it’s non-binding. It doesn’t limit the discretion of people who hold office and it doesn’t maintain government by consent or the rule of law. Instead, it gives us government by judiciary and the arbitrary rule of men.

Self-government will continue to remain a dead concept so long as we constantly have federal officials, and candidates, who believe in a “living, breathing” Constitution.

Brian Clark

Senior

Political science