The War Against the U.S. Constitution
When Robert Bork was nominated to the U.S. Supreme Court by President Ronald Reagan in 1987, it created a firestorm in Congress, and he failed to get confirmed. Shortly thereafter, he wrote The Tempting of America, which I believe is the best book about constitutional law in a century—perhaps ever.
Mr. Bork said he believes we are more than halfway along in the destruction of our Constitution. If he is right, our republic is in grave danger.
He made that statement about two decades ago. Surely he would think the Constitution is 60 to 75 percent destroyed today.
So you could make the case that the problem is too far gone to even correct. At least, this danger should terrify every American citizen!
Negative Liberties
In a 2001 radio interview, Barack Obama revealed some of his shocking ideas about how the government should run.
Here is what he said about the 1953-1969 Supreme Court led by Chief Justice Earl Warren, which was a very activist court: “To that extent, as radical as I think people tried to characterize the Warren court, it wasn’t that radical.” Notice this! “It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution” (emphasis mine throughout).
The extremely liberal Warren Supreme Court wasn’t radical enough, in Mr. Obama’s opinion.
Mr. Obama was talking about how the constraints on the Constitution need to be
“Generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties,” Mr. Obama continued. “It says what the states can’t do to you, says what the federal government can’t do to you, but it doesn’t say what the federal government or the state government must do on your behalf.”
That is true, and it is a major reason the Constitution was so successful in establishing this nation.
Essayist Bill Whittle wrote this in response to Mr. Obama’s interview: “The entire purpose of the Constitution was to limit government. That limitation of powers is what has unlocked in America the vast human potential available in any population. Barack Obama sees the limiting of government not as a linchpin, but rather as a fatal flaw …” (National Review Online, Oct. 27, 2008).
This is Mr. Obama’s view of the Constitution. When he says it should have stated what the government “must” do on the people’s behalf, he is talking about federal social programs. As he said in the same radio interview, this means taking wealth from some citizens and redistributing it to others in the form of health care, welfare and other social benefits.
A lot of that thinking was what virtually destroyed the home mortgage firms Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. That crisis is at the heart of America’s financial meltdown.
I warned about how dangerous his views were in the January 2009 Trumpet.Mr. Obama gave a clear signal that he would work to change the Constitution—the founding document of this nation!
That is a shocking view from a man with very little experience in government. And his election shows how little Americans understand or care about their Constitution!
Understanding Human Nature
The Founding Fathers created the Constitution to limit the government’s power because they had lived under a tyrant who decided, according to his own whims, what was fair for the people and what wasn’t. The Constitution gave them a certain protection from evil human nature. The founders based this charter on certain biblical principles, not just human reasoning.
What happens if you don’t have a Constitution to hold back the radical left? You end up with a welfare state and a loss of many freedoms!
I believe Mr. Obama sincerely thinks his ideas will solve America’s problems, and I’m not saying he is malicious.
But look at how his disrespect for the Constitution is driving his decisions. He is pushing the government into activities it was never meant to do. He is appointing judges who think the same way, who will reject parts of the Constitution and remove its restraints so radicals can do whatever they want with the government!
One of the strongest czars the president chose, and who has since been forced to resign, was a self-avowed communist! How much love do you think he has for the Constitution?
Our Forefathers’ Goal
Early immigrants who came to this land were often persecuted in the countries they left. They usually lacked religious freedom.
The famous British historian Paul Johnson wrote an article titled “No Law Without Order, No Freedom Without Law.” It was printed in the Sunday Telegraph, Dec. 26, 1999. In it he wrote: “[B]oth in Virginia and in New England to the north, the colonists were determined, God-fearing men, often in search of a religious toleration denied them at home, who brought their families and were anxious to farm and establish permanent settlements. They put political and religious freedom before riches …. Thus took shape the economic dynamo that eventually became the United States—an experiment designed to establish the rule of God on Earth ….”
What a goal. They planned to establish the rule of God on Earth! That means they had the goal of each person keeping the Ten Commandments of God—the basis of all righteous law.
In 1954, Supreme Court Chief Justice Earl Warren wrote, “I believe the entire Bill of Rights came into being because of the knowledge our forefathers had of the Bible and their belief in it.”
The Constitution is the foundation of our republic. And the Ten Commandments were, in many ways, the foundation of the Constitution. Our forefathers believed that if we didn’t keep God’s Ten Commandments, our republic would collapse!
We can’t afford to take the words of our founders lightly if we want to see our nation stand.
It was much harder for our Founding Fathers to spill streams of blood winning our freedom, and to create and establish our constitutional law, than it is for us just to maintain it! So we ought to respect our Founding Fathers above ourselves. But we are too vain and arrogant to see how profoundly strong they were and how pathetically shallow and weak we are.
Law schools routinely teach about being “legal realists.” Like former Vice President Al Gore, they want an “evolving Constitution.” But this reasoning gives the judges despotic powers. It also takes us away from the foundational law established by our forefathers.
Then why do our politicians allow it? The president and Congress often like the judges to do this, if the decisions are favorable to their views and they know their views will not be approved by the voters. Still, the judges are taking power from the legislature and the executive branches as they rewrite the Constitution.
Our politicians simply lack the vision to see how disastrous this process is. It is based on selfish lawlessness—not law!
The great heresy being taught in our law schools is that the judges are not bound by law. Some are saying the Constitution isn’t even law!
That means we are being led by the human reasoning of a dangerously liberal culture.
That is often the opposite of establishing the rule of law. History reveals that empires are destroyed if they fail to establish the rule of law. But the radical liberal culture often has contempt of history and our Founding Fathers. Its followers foolishly rely on their own reasoning, which is not grounded in foundational law.
The Constitution is being altered dramatically. And it is the foundation of our republic! We are experiencing a constitutional earthquake, and most of our people don’t even know it—yet. Your future is being changed for you, and often you have no input.
This process is sure to lead to anarchy! That is why you and I should be deeply concerned.
Seeking Destructive Lawlessness
Why did our Founding Fathers work so hard to establish the Constitution? Because it was to be the supreme law of the land.
“A well-known Harvard law professor,” Mr. Bork wrote, “turned to me with some exasperation and said, ‘Your notion that the Constitution is in some sense law must rest upon an obscure philosophic principle with which I am unfamiliar.’”
But notice what the Constitution itself states: “This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, any thing in the Constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.
“The senators and representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.”
A Harvard law professor is actually stating that the Constitution is not even law! That view comes from our most prestigious university. The very fact that he would even make that statement shows that we are already getting into extreme lawlessness!
The majority of our leaders now agree with the Harvard law professor. He made a statement that shows we are failing to establish the rule of law. The real issue here is lawlessness.
That means your future will be adversely affected.
Cal Thomas wrote in the March 8, 2000, Washington Times, “In the final Democratic debate before the Super Tuesday election, Vice President Al Gore responded to a question about the type of Supreme Court justices he as president would select: ‘I would look for justices of the Supreme Court who understand that our Constitution is a living and breathing document, that it was intended by our founders to be interpreted in the light of the constantly evolving experience of the American people.’ …
“Mr. Gore’s view of the Constitution, shared by most political liberals, is one of the most dangerous philosophies of our time. It establishes a class of philosopher-kings who determine the rights of the people and shreds the Constitution as a document that conforms people to unchanging principles that promote their own and the general welfare.
“A ‘living’ Constitution, notes constitutional attorney John Whitehead, means the Constitution is ‘up for grabs,’ and it becomes whatever the justices decide, not the people through their elected representatives ….
“The founders never intended the courts to be supreme. Their intention was that the law, rooted in objective and unchanging truth, would be preeminent.”
Law scholars today don’t believe the Constitution was “rooted in objective and unchanging truth”—that is, they don’t believe our founders established the rule of law. But that’s just what the founders did. And now most lawyers and judges reject their foundational work.
Our views today reflect a deadly degeneration into lawlessness!
The radical liberal culture in politics wants a ” living Constitution.” Mr. Bork stated that many liberals imply the Constitution is dead. They don’t want unchanging truth, established 200 years ago, to direct their lives. For more information on this subject, request our free booklet No Freedom Without Law.
The liberal religious culture similarly wants a “living Bible.” Their “intelligence” demands that they adapt the Bible to modern times—even though every word was inspired by God (Matthew 4:4).
Most religions preach that God’s law was done away, in spite of what Jesus said in Matthew 5:17-18: “Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.” Christ came to fulfill the law, or fill the law to the full. He essentially was saying every t must be crossed and every i dotted. Still, many thought, and still think, that He came to destroy the law. They refuse to believe the truth!
Christians are supposedly people who follow Christ, the Lawgiver. That is how they got their name “Christian.”
But whether secular or religious, we are racing into lawlessness, and our nation is plunging toward disaster. Any good history book will show us that!
The Bible should be even more convicting. Study it and see the deadly danger of lawlessness. When the new U.S. government was established, Benjamin Franklin said that we have “a republic, if you can keep it.“ It’s all about either establishing the rule of law—or descending into lawlessness and chaos.