Guest Post by Eric Peters
It’s said – approvingly, by some – that the Constitution is a “living” document.
Imagine any other contract that was also “living.” That is, subject to unilateral changes according to the whim of one of the parties to the contract.
Would you sign?
Would you feel yourself bound by such a contract?
Probably not.
Any contract subject to change without the explicit prior consent – freely given – of both parties is no contract at all.
The words agreed to either have very specific meanings (this is what lawyers are for) clearly stated and clearly agreed to – or they don’t. If the meaning is “living” – subject to interpretation by one side or the other – then the document has no meaning, except whatever suits the party doing the “interpreting.” If that party has power to enforce its “interpretation,” then what you’ve got is not a contract.
It is an excuse to abuse.
A means of compelling the acquiescence of the victim to an outrage he would otherwise never tolerate.
This is the evil genius of the “living” Constitution, which was purposefully engineered to do exactly that by its engineers.
They referred to themselves as Federalists for a reason.
The Constitution, they assured was, was supposed to define the limited powers of the federal government but – as ought to be evident by now – provided the legal mechanism for the acquisition of unlimited power by the federal government. Exactly as intended.
There is now, very plainly, absolutely nothing beyond the scope of the federal government’s authority to micromanage (and punish).
If the Constitution had merit as a contract, one would be able to read the thing and determine whether “x” was within the scope of the powers granted or not. But it is a “living” document – and so everything is at least potentially (and increasingly, actually) within the scope of the powers granted.
If a majority of the nine robed high priests of the church of state – who have given themselves the power to “interpret” the “living” document – agree that the government has lawful authority to do “x” then – presto! – it has the power. Regardless of any direct language to the contrary such as found in the tacked-on Bill of Rights, the plain language thereof being purposefully ignored when not in accordance with the desire of the Nine to increase the “constitutional” powers of the federal government.
The “living” Constitution is metastasizing cancer. It grows without limit.
In a will or other valid contract, you will not encounter essentially meaningless verbiage such as the “general welfare” – which is meaningless precisely because it can mean anything, according to anyone’s opinion thereof.
Rather, you will find meticulous, precise language that is not the least bit “living.” That’s the point of having a contract. It’s why you hire lawyers to write them. So that there is no misunderstanding.
No interpretation after the fact.
Each party is assured of the other’s obligations prior to signing – and they sign (agree) on this basis. That “x” is within the terms of the contract but “y” is not. If one or both parties to the contract become unhappy with the terms of the contract, they may agree to change the contract or to null and void the contract. But both parties must agree to this.
One party cannot unilaterally change the terms – and then demand the other party obey.
Imagine if the fixed-rate, 30-year mortgage you signed became a “living” document one fine day. You receive a letter in the mail informing you that your lender has “interpreted” the fixed 3.2 percent interest you agreed to actually means “fixed according to changing market conditions” and your new rate is higher.
Would you send in your next payment?
No contract – except the “living” Constituion – works like this.
Yet we are supposed to accept constantly shifting unilateral changes regarding our obligations under said contract, alongside constantly shifting, unilateral changes regarding the powers enjoyed by the government.
These powers always increasing – along with our obligations.
Our liberties constantly diminishing.
Lord Vader’s quip to Lando Calrissian in The Empire Strikes Back comes to mind: “I am altering the deal; pray I do not alter it further.”
Lando, of course, was under no illusion about the nature of the “deal.” He understood where he stood in relation to Lord Vader (and the empire) and felt no moral obligation to obey; he did so as necessary to save his skin – under duress. And disobeyed whenever an opportunity presented itself.
Why are so many Americans deluded about the “living” Constitution? So pathetically reverentially toward a contract that binds them but not the other party? That imposes new and onerous obligations on them at whim – while releasing the other party from any obligations whatsoever?
At what point will a sufficiency of the public realize such a contract is no contract at all?
The Supreme Court is the problem.
Who is appointed determines whether or not the Constitution means what is says and means or what someone in high places decides it should say and means says.
Not that it makes any difference who is elected and makes the appointments, or so I often get told around here.
No, the SCOTUS is not “the” problem. It is one problem among many. Other major problems include the attitude of judges at lower levels, the attitudes of employees, agents, and agency heads, the attitudes of FDR, Truman, and all presidents since Kennedy, the general lack of constitutional knowledge among the populace, etc….
Actually it’s one problem among a few problems. End the central bank and “problems” decrease by 95% instantly.
Millions of people have adjustable rate mortgages. I had one on an investment property that I signed in 2005. The interest rate started at 7% and was tied to LIBOR, which dropped over the 10 years I had the note, down to 3.25% when I sold it last year.
Just sayin’…
Rise Up, your example is bullshit. An adjustable rate mortgage is a contract which allows rates to be adjusted according to some index. When your rate changed it wasn’t a unilateral change in your contract by the bank, the rate changed because the contract YOU SIGNED said it was suppose to change.
Just sayin’
Probably right, Trapped. I used a poor analogy. Touche’.
What? Jus sayin what? You signed a contract that stipulated it was an ARM.
Hmmm…I guess some folks could read a little bit of Lysander Spooner on his take of the Constitution and its contract with us .
I constantly hear the folks in CONgress talk about ” Activist Judges ” making up law . The 1st question to ask your CONgress critter is, ” Have You Read And Understand The Constitution “. If they answer yes,then ask if they understand Article 3 section 2 ? if they answer yes then I would hope they know they have the power to stop “Activist Judges” by simply putting one line in any bill ” This Law Isn’t Reviewable By The Courts ” . Case close, it is settled law ……Ex Parte McCardle .
Oh and they can get rid of the Federal Courts as well with the power of the purse…or as Ol’ Hickory said basically the Supreme Court may have given a ruling but let me see them enforce it .
The power of the purse becomes vise-like with no central bank.
Constitution? What Constitution? We don’t have a Constitution. It is what the Supreme Court says it is and guess who appointed the deciders.
overthecliff
Probably the biggest problem in general is the level of ignorance among the general population. The Federal Government doesn’t follow the constitution anymore, other then the broad outline of it.
All of the drug laws and the fake money are clearly unconstitutional. Yet most people are oblivious to it.
The constitution itself was rather well written. One of the biggest flaws that I noticed, is in how the Supreme Court justices are picked. They should never have been picked by the President, a member of the Federal Government itself. A better way would have been some process among the states themselves, like the senators had been picked.
Also the issue of money should have been a bit more explicit to have protected us from the bankers.
The Constitution was shredded during the War Of Northern Aggression. The Southern States were acting on their right to leave the Union and were attacked. Lincoln jailed people who spoke out against the war and closed down any newspaper doing likewise.The aftermath of the war was horrendous.
Later, the passage of the Federal Reserve Act sealed our nation’s fate. I agree that we don’t have a Constitution.
Woodrow Wilson sold us out/he is the worst. He gave the bankers
(an eventual) world monopoly on stripping assets from every
country they enter. And, these days, they may be ruling the world.
The power those people have over countries is unparalleled.
The power they have over politicians is legion. Everyone is on
tinder-hooks waiting breathlessly for word on what the Fed has
to say. Will they raise rates? OMG. The Fed has us all enthralled.
Hang the bankers and jump baby jump. Wrap their bodies in
garlic and printed crucifixes…maybe they will vaporize.
We only have a Constitution in name. It is a purely historical and symbolical document at this point. Seriously, the way I ready the thing I’m guess at least 90% of the federal government and probably a higher percentages of federal laws are unconstitutional. There is no going back by working within the system. The laws will not be repealed. The leviathan will continue to devour and feed itself until it falls. Even if the nation some how elected 500 Ron Pauls to the house and 75 Ron Pauls to the Senate I don’t think it could be turned around at this point.
Just to play devils advocate, the constitution is not really a contract. A contract is an agreement signed between two people legally able to sign a contract ( adults). None of us, when born, had a pen thrust into our hands and signed on to a “contract” called the constitution.
To equate a constitution with a contract is spurious. They are two different things.
I was thinking the same thing.
The Constitution is the Law of the land and as such should have been followed to the T. It was written by honorable, intelligent men who saw first hand the tyrannies of overbearing governments and the detriment guaranteed as a result of over-taxation and lack of any meaningful representation. The Constitution’s sole purpose was to limit the powers of the federal government to prevent tyranny and fortify a strong and honest society by splitting the corridors of power so that one branch would never be able to overpower the other two. The assumption was that there would never be more than one corrupt branch at a time. No one during that era could ever predict the level of collusion and corruption that would slime its way to the top to usurp the noble goal of power dispersion. The law of the land that would have assured our continued prosperity was violated and sold to the highest bidders. The erosion of ethics in men parallels the erosion of direct implementation as it applies to the Constitution. There is nothing to interpret. The words are clear and concise. The law does not enable 40000 pages of tax code, the law does not give the Supreme Court the right to interpret the Constitution as a matter of legal recourse, the law does not allow federal law to usurp state law.
Hey General the Constitution does protect us from the banksters in a way . The Constitution calls for the “Coining Of Money ” . It doesn’t say jack about printing money . Printing money is Un-Constitutional .
What the Supreme Court interprets now is generally some level of liberal dribble to allow the left in our country to erode individual freedoms pure and simple and it will continue until something breaks and look around you shit is cracking up everywhere !
Utter lunacy. The Constitution is NOT a contract. It’s an outline of governing — period. It is not a “living” document, it’s an adaptable one. Of course if you believe that only white, landholders have the right to vote, that slavery is not just legal, but condoned (3/5 of a person during census!), if you really want to get all literal…it’s the right to keep and bear arms (hey look, I’ve got two of them). And who pray tell is going to define “unreasonable” when it comes to searching and seizing. Oh and don’t forget the Post Office and Post Roads — look there it is in Article 1. You know, I think it’s constitutionally kosher to declare all highways, telephone, cable, wireless, etc “roads” the expressed property of the Federal government. What do you think…