How do we approach the Constitution of the United States? Is it a living document changing with time and following the whims of society? There are forces at work changing the meaning and application of the Constitution through the use of legislation, executive order and judicial activism to twist our nation into a funhouse reflection of itself.

Some changes have been popular. How many times in political campaigns do we hear “share the wealth”? Redistribution is attractive when you’re on the receiving end. What about when its your hard-earned wealth being redistributed? According to Thomas Sowell¹: “an absolute majority of those Americans in the bottom 20 percent in income in 1975 were also in the top 20 percent at some point over the next 16 years.” Because of the opportunities in this country you who cheer spreading the wealth today may someday feel the tax man’s hand in your pocket.

Business is another reason some of these changes have been possible—being too busy to pay attention. People losing one third of their income to federal, state and local taxes must work long hours to get ahead. Every other day a new protest or demonstration is reported about a perceived injustice. Whether it be healthcare, immigration, welfare or affirmative action a plethora of Americans are exercising their First Amendment right to speak out. In most of these crowds you notice an appalling absence of those called on to pay for these new essentials. You see plenty of wealthy starlets, professional protesters, spoiled rich kids and hand-out recipients. Where are the construction workers, the small business owners, or the other cogs in the wheel of the American machine? They are where they always are: working hard each day to to pay their taxes with enough left over to put food on the table. They can’t afford to protest because they have responsibilities. Unfortunately, when the news is awash with stories of Americans protesting this or that you get the idea that their problems are real. Bullhorn dialog can be very convincing when life is screaming in the other ear.

Besides these there is lot of confusion over what the founders meant. The English language has changed since the constitution was written. Just a few of the questions that come to mind:
What did they mean by a well regulated militia?
Did they intend for the commerce clause to cover so much?
How should the necessary and proper clause be stretched?

These are not easy to answer without reference to the writings of the founders. Words themselves can change over time—meanings shift. Would the founders equate the National Guard of each state as militia? Is it possible that by militia they meant an armed populace?

Proper interpretation of these requires an understanding of the language as it was used by the framers and the history of the views. If those responsible to interpret the Constitution reject the original meaning of the words and the intent of the framers then how can the average American set them straight? When those chosen to safeguard the Constitution see themselves as the righter of perceived wrongs and the arbiter of truth judicial tyranny results.

Some claim the Constitution is a living document changing with the needs of society. There a way for the Constitution to be changed to keep pace with a changing world. The founders gave us the amendment process. Any other change is illegal.

Government of the people, by the people and for the people, can only be safeguarded by the people.

1 Thomas Sowell, Basic Economics: A Citizen’s Guide to the Economy (New York: Basic Books, 2004), 145.