The Declaration, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights

 

The US Constitution is the supreme law of the land and the foundation of the American system of government. It is also a document that reflects the conservative principles of limited government, individual liberty, and the rule of law. However, some people advocate for the idea of a living breathing Constitution, which means that the Constitution can be interpreted and applied differently over time, depending on the changing circumstances and needs of the society. This idea is opposed by many conservatives, who argue that a living Constitution has several drawbacks and dangers.

One of the arguments against the idea of a living Constitution is that it undermines the authority and legitimacy of the Constitution as the supreme law of the land, and allows judges and politicians to change the meaning and application of the Constitution according to their own preferences or agendas. This means that the Constitution is no longer a fixed and stable document, but a flexible and subjective one, that can be manipulated by those in power. This also means that the Constitution is no longer a source of guidance and constraint for the government, but a tool of justification and expansion for the government. This can lead to the erosion of the constitutional limits on the government, and the violation of the rights and freedoms of the people.

Another argument against the idea of a living Constitution is that it violates the principle of originalism, which holds that the Constitution should be interpreted according to its original meaning and intent, as understood by the people who ratified it. This principle respects the authority and legitimacy of the Constitution as the supreme law of the land, and preserves the stability and continuity of the constitutional order. Originalism also respects the sovereignty and consent of the people, who are the ultimate source of the constitutional power, and who have the right to amend the Constitution through the proper process. Originalism also respects the wisdom and foresight of the Founding Fathers, who crafted the Constitution with the knowledge of history and human nature, and who anticipated the challenges and dangers that the republic would face.

A third argument against the idea of a living Constitution is that it disregards the amendment process, which is the proper way to update the Constitution in response to changing circumstances and needs. The amendment process is designed to be difficult and deliberate, requiring the approval of two-thirds of both houses of Congress and three-fourths of the states. This ensures that any changes to the Constitution are based on the broad and lasting consensus of the people, and not on the whims and fashions of the moment. The amendment process also ensures that any changes to the Constitution are clear and explicit, and not vague and implicit. The amendment process also ensures that any changes to the Constitution are respectful and reverent, and not reckless and radical.

The idea of a living Constitution is not only a legal concept, but also a moral and political one. It reflects a progressive worldview that rejects the conservative ideals of natural rights, consent of the governed, and social contract, which are derived from the Declaration of Independence and the writings of John Locke and other classical liberals. It also reflects a progressive attitude that is impatient, arrogant, and utopian, which is contrary to the conservative values of patience, humility, and realism, which are essential for the survival and prosperity of the American nation. By rejecting the idea of a living Constitution, conservatives uphold and defend the Constitution as the supreme law of the land, and the foundation of the American system of government.