The only way to shred the Constitution is to fake it

Time Magazine, which is scarcely a relevant publication anymore (at least not the way it was when I was growing up), garnered itself some publicity by questioning whether the Constitution still matters.  Proving that there are good lawyers out there, Aaron Worthing explains the thirteen egregious errors Time made in order to denigrate the Constitution’s importance.

Through fakery, the Times article tries to explain that the Constitution either supports the huge federal government we have today, as well as illegal immigration, affirmative action, and the whole panoply of Leftist causes, or that it should stand in the way of those same causes.  This sleight of hand allows it to ignore the fact that the document as written is antithetical to Leftist/statist government.

The only way to change this stubborn fact is to do the one thing Leftists avoid at all costs:  formal constitutional amendment.  And why do they avoid it?  That’s easy.  They do so because they know that, whether through Congressional amendment or popular vote, the Americans will baulk at the way in which the Leftists want to take a document focused tightly on individual liberty, and turn it into a document that tightens government control.

Worthing’s article is excellent.  I’ll also toot my own horn by pointing you to a post I wrote about how the modern Civil Rights movement has been used as a springboard to fold, spindle and mutilate the Constitution almost beyond recognition.

Be Sociable, Share!
  • Zachriel

    Richard Stengel: If the Constitution was intended to limit the federal government, it sure doesn’t say so. Article I, Section 8, the longest section of the longest article of the Constitution, is a drumroll of congressional power. And it ends with the “necessary and proper” clause, which delegates to Congress the power “to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.” Limited government indeed.
    Though the Constitution allowed for a much stronger central government than the Articles of Confederation, it certainly does limit government, and does so in many places within the Constitution. 
    Richard Stengel: We can pat ourselves on the back about the past 223 years, but we cannot let the Constitution become an obstacle to the U.S.’s moving into the future with a sensible health care system, a globalized economy, an evolving sense of civil and political rights. 
    It is the rule of law that preserves freedom for most people in most situations. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes. Abandoning the Constitution, the foundation of American law, would be foolhardy. 

  • Pingback: Ed Driscoll » Time Magazine: Does It Still Matter?()

  • MacG

    Good on Ya Zach!

  • Ymarsakar

    Unfortunately, the reality and details of Z’s positions belie his claims. That’s how the Left works. They make it sound all nice and good, limited government or individual “choice”, but in reality, it’s not about those things at all.

  • Ymarsakar

    Look for one word of protest Z said about ObamaCare being unConstitutional or giving the federal government too much power. Look for one word of protest Z uttered concerning how nationalizing businesses and the debt policies of Obama are unConstitutional

    When you get tired of trying to find them, I’ll still be here.

  • Zachriel

    Ymarsakar: Look for one word of protest Z uttered concerning how nationalizing businesses and the debt policies of Obama are unConstitutional.

    If they are unconstitutional, then take it to court. That’s one of the most important checks on government overreach. 

  • Ymarsakar

    Z says take it to court. It’s already in the courts, but Z’s ignorance wouldn’t have been aware of that little tidbit, now would it. Meanwhile…. Zster and kick back allies, are doing something about totalitarian government power that is very out of the courts and out of the public eye.

  • Zachriel

    Ymarsakar: Z says take it to court. It’s already in the courts,

    Concerning whether the government can take on debt? What is the case?