What’s Wrong with a ‘Living’ Constitution?


One of the most adroit bits of leftist phrase-mongering is the contrast between a “living Constitution” (what they want) and the “dead” one (which puts many obstacles in the way of big government).

Professor David Eisenberg of Eureka College has written an excellent essay on the “living Constitution” idea. The difference between the leftist conception and the actual Constitution is not that the latter is dead, but that it was meant to endure.

Eisenberg hits upon the truth when he observes that the “progressive” idea of an easily malleable constitution gives us “illimitable government.” We have been moving in that direction for the last century and, under Biden, we’re moving at nearly the speed of light. Politicians (and too many of the public) assume that any and every problem can and must be solved through action by the federal government.

In hindsight, the Founders look very wise in their efforts at creating a federal government of strictly limited powers.“

You Might Like

Articles You May Like

Attorneys for Garland Favorito File Appeal of Dismissal in Fulton County Ballot Inspection Case
BOMBSHELL: There is NO scientific evidence that covid-19 vaccines have saved a single life
The Media Stopped Talking About Darrell Brooks Because He’s Black and His Victims Are Mostly White
Top indigenous health expert nicknamed ‘Morning Star Bear’ under fire for allegedly faking Native American heritage
Republican Candidate Tim Griffin Vows to Use Arkansas AG’s Office to Fight Federal Overreach

Leave a Comment - No Links Allowed:

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *