Liberals view the Constitution as an antiquated document written by racist rich white men. They believe that it should be revised to fit the times. “It is a different world” they say. My opinions reject this liberal view and are more in agreement with Calvin Coolidge when he said:
If all men are created equal, that is final. If they are endowed with inalienable rights, that is final. If governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, that is final. No advance, no progress can be made beyond these propositions. If anyone wishes to deny their truth or their soundness, the only direction in which he can proceed historically is not forward, but backward toward the time when there was no equality, no rights of the individual, no rule of the people. Those who wish to proceed in that direction can not lay claim to progress. They are reactionary. (emphasis added)
-“The Inspiration of the Declaration.”
Aside from this point, when liberals say they want to revise the Constitution they are rejecting the very platform which gives them the legal right to say it thus pulling the carpet out from under them. An example of this are people who want to make illegal “hate speech”. My question is this, who gets to decide what speech counts as hate speech? Whoever is in power will decide which speech is considered “hate”. It will most likely consist of the speech of those who are political opponents.
Liberals cannot have their cake and eat it too. Another example of their inconsistency is the following:
Even though liberals think that nothing is transcendentally true in principle, somehow they think that the non-constitutional phrase “separation of church and state” is our founders gift to us and the world. Even though they are racist rich white men who knew nothing else, this idea is for today and for always. Keep God in the privacy of your own home. There is much that has been written about how the phrase is often misapplied by liberals, which I recommend reading. However, if they think that there are transcendent truths that can be gleaned from our founding fathers, I would be interested in finding out their methodology of figuring out what is true and applicable to today and why. So, liberals do see some value in the Constitution but they want to pick the parts they like.
Here is the crux of the issue:
Regarding the June 26th SCOTUS decision. I think both sides can agree that the precedent set by SCOTUS in usurping state authority and the democratic process is not good for the country, regardless of the outcome. This was a case of what is called judicial activism. When someone is willing to read ideas into the a text that were not the intent of the authors of that text, we are heading quickly in a direction where that text will become completely void of value and thus meaningless. This text was written by men who understood there to be transcendent and inalienable truths than men could not create or take away. Now that the text of the Constitution can mean whatever we want it to mean, it means nothing. Men and women will now use this text as they please and will silence opposition.
I guess my point is this: stop using the document you do not respect to destroy it and our collective liberty we enjoy.