Wednesday, July 27, 2005
Sen. Kennedy on ‘settled’ law

Senator Kennedy’s assertion (Wall Street Journal, July 25, 2005) that Commerce Clause jurisprudence is settled is laughable for many reasons.

1. First and foremost, Commerce Clause jurisprudence was “settled” in favor of freedom and liberty until the Supreme Court of the 1930s gutted the doctrine in order to make way for a socialistic, big-government nanny state.

2. Secondly, Senator Kennedy is one of many who believe the Constitution is a “living document” in which case NOTHING is EVER settled. Under that view – which ignores the Constitutional Amendment clauses not to mention many other facts – Constitutional law is therefore always open to the whim of a majority of five people on the Supreme Court.

Between the 1930s lack of jurisprudence and the “living document” insanity, the Constitution has become a shadow of its original self, something that can be twisted by the whims of whomever sits on the court. Until the Constitution is restored to its previous stature and impregnability, it will remain nothing but a document behind which those who wish to pervert its words to keep power over the rest of the people, can hide.

Think about the protective power of a “living” First Amendment: there is none, it provides no protection for anyone since it is subject to the caprice of the moment. Hearing a huge proponent of the “living document” theory state that *any* law is “settled” is ludicrous.

Recognize those who argue for a ‘living document’ for what they are – power-hungry politicians who recognize that the Constitution as written provided very strict limits on their power. Only by perverting the document’s plain meaning and twisting its words to suit their own purposes can they hope to exercise power over the people of the United States.

Note that you will see the statists arguing that the Constitution is “living” until it has been twisted into something that is plainly not in its words. Once it reaches that point, its meaning is then “settled” and it becomes not a tool for protecting freedom, but a tool for destroying it. It becomes not a tool to protect individual liberty, but a tool to impose someone else’s thoughts and dreams upon you.

The Constitution has a meaning that was fixed when it was written, to argue otherwise is to argue that it is meaningless – the goal of many in Washington who care more about their own power than our god-given and Constitutionally protected freedoms. Hiding behind his statements about looking out for the little guy, Senator Kenney is in reality one of the most power-hungry politicians in Washington.

Christian H F Riley