Grandpa Lake’s Weblog

Michael Farris wrote in a column on World Net Daily:

There are only two meaningful ways to interpret the Constitution. The originalist theory is that the words mean the same thing today as they meant when they were written and ratified. This is an approach that is necessary if we believe in both self-government and the rule of law. Self-government requires us to accept the meaning from the elected officials who made the law. The rule of law requires us to accept the rules established by the law as fixed principles until such time as another law of equal rank formally amends the first law.

The other theory of constitutional interpretation is the “living Constitution,” which asserts that the meaning of the Constitution changes over time. Words no longer have a fixed meaning. They now mean whatever the judges of today think they should mean. This is the rule of men, not law.

Obama’s theological wanderings may be interesting, but we have all that we need to know for voting purposes by the revelation that he is unwilling to address or follow the original meaning of the Constitution.

If he is unwilling to following the original meaning of the Constitution on life and death, why would we think he will follow it on anything less important?

Mr Farris makes a valid point, but what he points out about Obama is also true of Mr. McCain. McCain may be more “constitutional” in some of his views, but that is only because the Constitution agrees with McCain, not because McCain agrees with the Constitution.  Where McCain disagrees with the Constitution, his voting record shows that he is willing to ignore the Document.

America is defined by the words of the Constitution.  Because the Constitution is being ignored in all three branches of our federal government, the America that our founding creationists gave us is dead.  The idea is still alive in the hearts of some people.

http://www.selfgovernment.us/aip