Posted by
Playful Walrus on Monday, September 15, 2008 3:57:48 PM
How many people home during the day – and other viewers of The View – get their “news” from the likes of Whoopi Goldberg and Barbara Walters? Throw in Oprah and you have the makings for disaster.
In case you haven’t heard, Goldberg asked McCain if she should be worried about his Presidency because he believes in applying the Constitution as the people who wrote it intended. Reading things – the Constitution and the Bible – with their original meanings vexes Leftists, who want to pour new meanings into the words. Just imagine following directions for prescription medication the way Leftists read the Constitution or the Bible. “Well, it says only take one tablet a day, but maybe they really mean take five.”
There have been many great responses to Ms. Goldberg already. Over at Stop The ACLU, they write:
What Whoopi Goldberg does not grasp (and I don’t particularly blame her, as these things are not well taught any more) is that she wants strict constructionists. The meaning of the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments to our Constitution is pretty clear. She (if she had ever had been) is no longer a slave, and not one of us could ever in the present or future be a slave. Period. No person can be deprived of due process of law, and no one can be deprived of his or her right to vote.
That’s what the Constitution says, because it has been amended to say so. A strict constructionist would have to look at the intent of the Framers of the Constitution. In this case it would be the framers of these three amendments. A strict constructionist would look at the context of the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments and say, “Of course, the Americans who made this part of the Constitution, especially in the context of this happening just after the Civil War, intend that no person, and certainly not Black people, are ever to be slaves for any reason.”
A strict constructionist would look to the intent of those who drafted those Amendments (which, once again, are now part of the Constitution) and refrain from in any way eroding those protections.
Exactly. Part of the brilliance of the founders is that the Constitution can be amended. If the people want to change something, we can amend the Constitution. Leftists, though, too often try to use the courts to find previously unknown “rights”, instead of amending the constitution. If slavery had been ended by a court decision, another court decision could reinstate it. They fight perfectly qualified judicial appointments because they fear undermining cases like Roe v. Wade. If the “right” for a pregnant woman to terminate her pregnancy (kill her child) herself or by asking someone else to do it was implemented by an amendment, no judge (at least not one following the Constitution), could that that “right” away.
A proponent of a “living, breathing Constitution” may…just might…someday…maybe…decide that “neither slavery nor involuntary servitude shall exist in the United States” means something else given potential changes in public attitudes.
So does Whoopi Goldberg prefer a strict interpretation of the 13th Amendment, outlawing slavery for all time, or would she and her legacy prefer justices and judges who might not look to what the Framers of the 13th Amendment intended and someday decide that the 13th Amendment has lived, breathed, and evolved?
Good question.
Congress should legislate, the President should sign or veto and enforce, and the judiciary should interpret and apply. The Left wants judges that will “discover” a right to a state-issued marriage license for any couple (at least ones not closely related). The Left wants judges who will “discover” a right to taxpayer-funded health insurance for all. I want judges who apply our Constitution. I don’t want them looking to other countries for their guidance, or making things up as they go along. If they want to make law, they can run for Congress.