Not a Living Document, Dummy

Unlike most constitutional law professors, at least one member of the House Judiciary Committee, U.S. Representative Trent Franks (R-Ariz.), believes the idea of the U.S. Constitution as a living document is “asinine.” Franks was speaking before a group of conservative and libertarian college students from across the country at Eagle Forum’s annual Collegian Summit on Capitol Hill.

During the Q and A, a Bucknell University student asked an interesting question. “My constitutional law professor said that keeping or ridding us of ‘Under God,’ Christians lose either way. What do you think?,” the girl asked.

“He’s wrong on that,” said Franks, “If they would just recognize it as historical fact it would be a great start, but they [people who want Under God taken out] want every Star of David and every cross taken off the headstones in Arlington cemetery,” said Franks, who added: “Separation of church and state is in a constitution. But it is in the Soviet constitution, not the American one.”

When people decide the Constitution is a living document the results are a politicized court system in which the judges’ perspectives become everything, Franks said.

The founders worked hard to create a document that would survive, relying on 1,000 years of ideas of what worked and what didn’t, explained Franks. This is why they created three coequal branches of government, with limitations and powers to check each other. They certainly didn’t mean that the Supreme Court was to have the final word over the other branches, said Franks.

They feared the possibility of an unrestrained judiciary, said Franks, adding, “I’m convinced nothing we face is more important than free people forgetting what makes them free.”

“If you told the Founding Fathers that it was their intent to enshrine partial-birth abortion, or not protect ‘Under God,’ to redefine eminent domain, or protect child pornography…They would say you put it back or we’ll duel,” said Franks.

This concept results in judicial oligarchy, which is why it is necessary to have judges who know what the Constitution means and was intended to mean, Franks continued.

The two things we must do then, are elect Presidents who understand how important it is to protect the people from judicial tyranny, and make sure that people understand what is written in Article 2 of the Constitution, said Franks.

Julia A. Seymour is a staff writer for Accuracy in Academia.