Saturday, October 23, 2010

How the Constitution is Read

How the Constitution is Read

"How the Constitution is read" excellent title for an excellent piece that explores a basic difference between Progressives and Conservatives.

Progressives read the Constitution and change the definition of the words and phrases to suit their preconceived notions and prejudices. And if they can't define the words differently, they rely on a judicial interpretation or construct to do it for them essentially modifying the Constitution without having to go through all that messy democracy stuff. Conservatives, on the other hand, read the Constitution with the meaning of the words and phrases fixed by traditional definitions with the document itself being immutable save for properly approved Amendments using all that messy democracy stuff. Obama and his ilk are clearly Progressives in the same sense as Karl Marx was a Progressive and they see the Constitution as an obstacle to their exercise of power–exactly what it was meant to be–rather than an aide to the exercise of power.

Nowhere has this inability to read plain English been more stark than the Left Stream Media's apoplectic reaction to Christine O'Donnell's statement that "the separation of church and state" is not in the Constitution. She is, of course, absolutely correct and the liberal, state-controlled media was absolutely wrong. O'Donnell, you see, has apparently actually read the Constitution whereas her opponent, Chris Coons, and the media rely on what they believe the 1st Amendment is supposed to say. In truth, the separation of church and state as a legal argument originated as a construct of a Supreme Court Justice in the 20th century.

Follow the link for an excellent read.

No comments: