The Constitution Doesn’t Count
Listening to the Sonia Sotomayor confirmation hearings I am struck by how sympathetic I have become with Shakespeare’s character DICK in Henry VI, “The first thing we do, let’s kill all the lawyers.” Let it be said, that I personally oppose homicide, but who am I to impose my values on someone else? But capital punishment for the murder of the foundations of American freedom – that’s another matter.
We are supposed to believe that what Sotomayor meant when she repeated her clever remark about a “wise Latina woman more often than not making a better decision than a white male” was, of course a wise Latina woman would not more often than not make a better decision than a white male. You see how easily that is cleared up?
Alternatively the response was that she made those statements to encourage young minority lawyers, and thought they would be inspired by her racist remarks. Why would she think it “inspiring” for someone to hear that people of your ethnic group are wiser than the members of another group? Wouldn’t it be more inspiring to hear that in America anyone can succeed through hard work and determination?
Listening to her discuss legal decisions and reasoning just stupefies the mind. I have interviewed some of the best legal minds in the America, and they can smoke me when it comes to cases and long convoluted sentences, but frequently can’t hold their own when asked straightforward questions. Ever notice the legal goop telling you about how you can use your credit card? Anyone with a high school diploma could write clearer instructions. Why we insist on nominating people who talk like this, and whose minds think like this baffles me. Why we would turn over criminal and civil law to people who think like this is beyond me. (Remember the O.J. Simpson trial.) The result of putting such mountebanks in charge of how our culture operates means that the original, clear, articulated meaning of a thing is turned by degree into the very thing it forbade. They propose quack nostrums as a replacement for authentic cures.
As an example, consider how lawyers have succeeded in overturning the 14th Amendment without firing a shot. That Amendment requires that no laws can be written or enforced that grant privileges to one group that are not equally available to all others. It was designed to end group privileges.
People like Barack Obama and Sonia Sotomayor however, do not see anyone as an individual – a person; they see people only as members of a group. So groups are recognized by the new utopians, but not “persons” as the Constitution requires. This permits the powerful to deny to individual citizens what clearly cannot be denied to them under the Constitution. What started out as a commitment to equal opportunity (in the 14thAmendment, and later civil rights legislation) has led to bean counting, quotas, race-norming, grouping, affirmative action, group rights, and contract set-asides. So now when a “person” jumps through all the hoops, follows all the rules; and still there is a disparate outcome on a test, these ignorati think it their right to deny advancement to those who did well because they were members of the wrong group!
So we fought a Civil War, made corrections to the Constitution denying any group a benefit that is not granted to all other groups with the 14th Amendment. A person’s color, previous status as a slave, or an indentured servant must all be ignored so every person has the same rights. No special rights for white males that also do not apply to everyone else. The government is bound; limited; prevented from granting group rights. But now we have degenerated to where federal judges and elected officials turn the Amendment on its head by making special rules for one group that cannot be applied to another. It’s maddening. It’s frustrating; and the Founders would never have stood for it. The blood of Union soldiers; Abolitionists and slaves cries from the ground for this betrayal.
This morning Ms. Sotomayor was asked a series of questions as to whether or not the Constitution said this or that, and in every case, she refused to answer the question and said she was trying to think of any case where the court had ruled on that question. In other words, the Constitution says absolutely nothing until the Supreme Court articulates what it says. I would love to have just read the 2ndAmendment, for example, and then asked Sotomayor if what I just read is in the Constitution. Without question she would not answer merely “Yes.” That’s because for her, the words of the Constitution are only an ideal, and that it is up to the courts to determine what the words mean. So when the words are, “A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed,” they don’t really mean that the government cannot limit our ownership of arms to preserve “the security of a free state;” no, no, they actually mean that deer hunting is okay; or target practice is permitted; or you can’t actually carry your gun with you here and there; you can’t purchase a gun that looks dangerous; or you can own the weapon, but you can’t buy the bullets; or we must issue you a permit for you to carry a weapon. The courts deny American citizens the absolute rights guaranteed by the Constitution all the time. They limit your right to free speech, they limit your right to practice your religion through zoning laws and “heritage committees” preserving buildings; they limit your right to peaceably assemble if you are protesting abortion, or are a Christian at an Islamic meeting.
All this reminds me about when I was doing construction work as a teen. I needed to cut a large number of 2X4 pieces a certain length. We had various lengths of lumber from which to cut the pieces. We didn’t have the equipment available today to easily make each of them the same; they had to be individually measured. I cleverly thought I could skip using the measuring tape for every piece, and the process would go quicker by using the first piece to mark the length of the second; then the second to mark the third and so on. I cut the pieces, and then began installing them. Very soon I found that each piece I cut was just a little longer that the one before it, and by the end, the pieces were too long by a couple of inches they were no longer what the plans called for, and I had to cut them all again.
This is what the legal profession has done with the U.S. Constitution. The measuring tape – the Constitution – was used at the beginning, but we’re past that now; we use previous pieces to mark new pieces; we use pieces cut by people in other nations; we use pieces from ancient history; we find pieces in effulgences and penumbras; we completely invent pieces; and what is perhaps the greatest political and legal document ever written is now forgotten; the plan it laid out for our culture and our society has been completely ignored for decades. The sleight of hand and misdirection is that the Constitution is a “living” thing or a “growing” document; when the truth is that powerful people want to deny the right of the people to be ruled by their own founding documents. These people are self-proclaimed Gnostics – they claim knowledge not available to ordinary people; they speak as Oracles. If we permit them, they will continue to flummox regular people hoping we will stand by, nod our heads, smile sagely, and pretend that these legal frauds are actually saying something significant. These utopians want a different kind of country, a different kind of culture, a different kind of order; and they tell flowery lies to prevent us from knowing what they are about.
So “case law” - which is the legal euphemism for cutting the next piece by sorting through all the previously cut pieces, other random pieces found in other locations, and whatever loose trash can be gathered up rather than using the tape measure – continues. The courts engage in endless debates about this or that piece of wood, or some assorted junk from somewhere else, while the Constitution itself collects dust; its wisdom forgotten. Independence has become dependence; individualism has become collectivism; liberty has become conformity; persons have become groups; freedom has become a mild but all-encompassing tyranny. The only question that remains is whether we will fight to throw off this mild but suffocating tyranny and punish those who have violated our social compact, and who have betrayed our sacred trust; or will we permit them to steal our birthright and render us spiritual paupers.