Illogical Thinking in Liberalism: Interpretation
A short essay pertaining to the illogical interpretations of the U.S. Constitution made by liberals/progressives.
America is the greatest country in the world. I won't apologize for that. One of the, 300 greatest achievements of mankind and America's pride and joy is her Constitution. A document that guarantees freedom to all men living under it's law, it is understood by few in the world, loved by many, and unfortunately hated by the powerful.
It has been under attack for many years, and in recent years it has come under a heavy assault. The enemies of the Constitution no longer hide themselves. When Nancy Pelosi was asked what in the Constitution gives congress the right to institute government run health-care, she responded with, "Are you serious? Are you serious?" Rep. John Dingll said in regards to the health-care bill, "The harsh fact of the matter is when you're going to pass legislation that will cover 300 (million) American people in different ways it takes a long time to do the necessary administrative steps that have to be taken to put the legislation together to control the people." Let me ask you Congressman Dingell, "Are you serious?!" What a bunch of idiots. 300 some million people in our country and these are the best we got?
With the advent of the Tea Party, Americans are waking up the crooked agendas of their politicians, and those who wish to undermine our country. They are starting to realize the that the bigger the government gets, the more liberties we lose. One way in which we are losing our liberties is through the interpretation of our Constitution by liberal scholars and activist judges. They call it the "Living, Breathing, Constitution." That is one of the most illogical things I've ever heard in my life. If the Constitution is living and breathing, then that mean we can change it whimsically, torture it, and even kill it. How else would you interpret that?
When God made the Ten Commandments, He wrote them on stone. He didn't write them on paper. He didn't say they were open for debate. They were cut and dry just like the Constitution. The founders knew that for a free people to remain free, they had to know their rights and where they come from. The U.S. Constitution is, for the most part, a very cut and dry document too. For those who have a hard time understanding the document, like politicians, our founding fathers left us with an immense array of literature which describes the meanings of the Constitution. One the most explanatory of those is the Federalist Papers. Written during the time of the Constitution, they were put out in local newspapers of the time explaining the Constitution.
Today's (and yesterday's) liberals interpret the Constitution to fit their agenda. One prime example is the right to privacy. No where in the Consitution is the "right to privacy" listed in the Constitution. You really have to stretch the interpretation to get a right to privacy. After that was determined, the Supreme Court of the United States said that the right to an abortion derives from the right to privacy. Simply ridiculous.
What I'm getting at is that to interpret the Constitution, or anything else for that matter, any way you see fit is preposterous. Lets say I write a love letter to my wife, professing my love in today's modern english. Suppose a thousand years from now, the english language is completely opposite of what it once was and words of love are hateful and vice versa. If you found my letter a thousand years from now you would think I hate my wife. The same goes for the Constitution. No one writes something, especially as important as the Constitution, and leaves it to be interpreted any which way for future generations. It's completely illogical and makes no sense.