The U. S. Constitution: The Ultimate Endangered Species

, Malcolm A. Kline, 8 Comments

Back during the 1972 campaign, satirist Mort Sahl, long thought to be a man of the Left but actually quite independent-minded, said something like this: “In less than 200 years we’ve gone from Madison, Adams, Franklin and Washington to Nixon and McGovern. What can we conclude from this? Darwin was wrong!”

The reference, of course, is to Charles Darwin’s thesis that man evolved into a higher species. Nevertheless, roughly the same could be said of the grand old document that quartet crafted: The United States Constitution.

At a Constitution Day conference at the Cato Institute on September 15, 2016, Elizabeth Price Foley, a law professor at Florida International University, pointed out that there were three levels of Constitutional scrutiny: strict, intermediate, and rational basis.

Arguably, the U. S. Supreme Court and all of those in its orbit—lawyers and law professors alike—are opting for none of the above. Indeed, Professor Foley pretty much does argue it, particularly in the four decades of SCOTUS decisions in abortion cases.

Professor Foley made note of the “creative contortions in them” even while indicating that she herself is pro-choice.  Professor Foley is the author of Liberty for All: Reclaiming Individual Privacy in a New Era of Public Morality, and numerous articles and columns.

Photo by kjd


8 Responses

  1. Jeff Dahl

    September 19, 2016 1:01 pm

    Except conservatives think the constitution is just fine as it was written…. it’s the liberals that call it a living document that should be changing with our times

  2. William

    September 19, 2016 1:03 pm

    Except that liberals don’t propose changing it. Conservatives are the ones who want to add or remove amendments in order to take away peoples freedoms.

  3. khh

    September 19, 2016 3:17 pm

    Glad to see you support the Constitution. Are you now going to argue for letting states decide marijuana legalization per the Tenth Amendment?

  4. 1200GS

    September 19, 2016 4:47 pm

    Liberals think they can effect change by simply interpreting it in a way that suits them.

    Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who told an Egyptian television audience that “I would not look to the U.S. Constitution if I were drafting a constitution in the year 2012.”

  5. Dan Hardesty

    September 20, 2016 7:00 am

    Conservatives would change the Constitution to limit the federal government. Examples would be term limits for Congress, require balancing the budget. We also believe in changing it the way it is proposed, not by courts or ignoring it altogether. Liberals (and some Republicans) are, and have been doing it that way for some time. Conservatives want to move the power down to the State level, per the 10A. Also, Republicans ended slavery and established civil rights, Democrats voted against them. Why are you ignoring facts?

  6. William

    September 20, 2016 2:19 pm

    No, they work to hand powers over to the government that it was never intended to have. Eg, persecuting women and doctors over abortion. Or putting people in prison for burning flags. Or prohibiting gay marriages.

    The Constitution was written as a limiting document, to limit the powers of government, and not allowing the government to persecute people.

Leave a Reply

(*) Required, Your email will not be published