The Constitution is Not Pro-Life
By Editor SUANews – September 21th, 2017
Sadly, most Americans have no idea how to interpret our Constitution or understand how and why it was written the way it was. The latest high-profile person to show her complete ignorance of our Constitution was good ole Hillary Clinton.
She actually is quoted as saying of our Electoral College, “I think it needs to be eliminated,,,,,, I’d like to see us move beyond it, yes.”
I hate to seem to be Hillary bashing, but that statement is so off the wall, she either doesn’t understand our Constitution, is too stupid to understand the core reasoning our Forefather’s used when they wrote it, or she’s an anti-Constitution globalist elite communist. Take your pick
Our forefathers knew that as our country grew, population centers would increase to the point that if they had allowed a popular vote for president, two or three States would end up running the country. They had to create the Electoral College to prevent that.
They decided to allow each State a number of Electoral votes, based on population, so in reality, the president of the United States is elected by the United States and not the people.
So, Hillary, you can take the popular vote idea and go straight to hell. We aren’t amending the Constitution for a stain like you. Our Constitution is very special.
But it wasn’t so special when it was signed on the 17th of September, 1787. When it was signed, the thought in our Forefathers mind was that any power, authority, or responsibility not given to the Federal government, in the Constitution, was not to be allowed. The problem was, they didn’t say that in the Constitution, it was assumed.
While the Constitution was in the ratification process, the States picked up on the mistake and it was decided to clear up the problem, so they called a meeting of Congress. They told us in the first sentence of the Preamble to the Bill of Rights:
“Congress of the United States begun and held at the city of New York, on Wednesday, the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty-nine.”
Rather than re-writing the Constitution they decided to amend it, and they did so ten times! There were more amendments, but the ten that survived were collectively called the Bill of Rights.
It took two and a half more years for the Bill of Rights to be ratified, and it was done so, on December 15th 1791. The States hadn’t trusted the Constitution as written in 1787 and they said so in the second paragraph of the Preamble to the Bill of Rights, which stated:
“THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent the misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.”
So why was the Bill of Rights written?
They felt that, “further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added.”
And why did they want them added?
The first phrase tells us: “in order to prevent the misconstruction or abuse of its powers.”
Whose powers? The newly created Federal Government
With these two phrases, our forefathers were telling us why they wrote the Bill of Rights. They wanted the restrictions declared because they feared the possibility of anyone incorrectly interpreting (“misconstruction”) the Constitution. They also did not want any misconstruction to lead to the federal government abusing its limited powers. How we doing so far?
They wrote the Bill of Rights to protect the “political freedom” of the people from the newly created federal government.
Yes, political (or legal) freedom, because the Constitution and Bill of Rights are political documents that define political freedom for all Americans.
The Constitution and Bill of Rights were not intended to restrict the People or the States in any way; it does, however, restrict the federal government. While everyone is always talking about the Second Amendment, the idea of restricting the federal government was set in cement with the Tenth Amendment, that simply states:
“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
What was previously assumed, was now written.
From my book, “A Charter of Negative Liberties,” I explain the Tenth Amendment with:
“This amendment is the big daddy of all amendments. It basically says that if our Forefathers forgot to restrain the federal government in the writing and words of the Constitution, any unmentioned powers and rights belong to the States and the People.”
I call it the “big broom amendment.” Our forefathers did not want to leave any loose ends with regard to any powers that might be lying around unmentioned in the Constitution. So, they created this amendment to sweep away any idea a tyrannical entity might have of usurping the Constitution, if its interpreted correctly. Again, how we doing so far?
Do you think the Left hasn’t been trying to change the meaning of the Tenth Amendment?
While researching information, I found two Life magazines: a special issue from 1986, titled “The Constitution,” and a Bicentennial issue from 1991, titled “The Bill of Rights.” While the writers tried to appear fair, their writing constantly gave them away as the liberals they are.
One paragraph will show us how intentions can be changed by a writer with words. Of the Tenth Amendment the writer stated,
“Only in the 10th Amendment are the States granted powers—and then only those not reserved to the federal government.”
He didn’t lie, but he didn’t tell the truth either. He reversed the emphasis in the meaning by implying that the federal government has all the powers, and that a few are granted to the States.
But we know the truth.
Now that we understand that, why do I say the Constitution isn’t pro-life?
The Constitution and Bill of Rights protects the people’s political freedom and do not address any moral issues. Our forefathers were very cognizant of leaving out moral issues in a political document.
That’s why the Liberals, who complain that the Constitution is an old out dated document, are wrong. They want it to be a Living Document and in a way, it is. It can be modified via the amendment process, but the definition of our freedom will never change.
The Constitution does not say it is against the law to rob a bank.
The Constitution does not say it is against the law to murder your neighbor.
The Constitution does not say it is against the law to sell or use drugs.
It does not say anyone has to believe in God or be a Christian.
It does not say anything about marriage and it does not say anything about abortion.
The Constitution is not pro-life. It is a secular political document and not the Bible. In fact, the Defense of Marriage Act was/is unconstitutional and the SCOTUS opinion was just as unconstitutional.
The Constitution and Bill of Rights weren’t written to address moral issues. They were written to address political freedom for the people and to set limits of power for a federal government. I cannot stress enough that the Constitution and the Bill of Rights are political documents, not moral ones.
Moral issues are covered by an individual’s conscience, religion and laws passed by local or state communities and can change as the moral culture changes, for better or for worse. What I mean is, our Forefathers wanted, from the federal government’s perspective, that moral issues not be addressed in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights. As a result those issues are off limits to the federal government.
Over time, as morality changes, it is the laws enacted by the people at the community, county, and state level that are intended to handle changes in moral values. If the people of California vote to approve or ban gay marriage, the Constitution does not give the federal government any authority to intervene for or against it. Marriage is not a political freedom issue. Likewise, the federal government was not granted the power to impose itself upon any state policy regarding murder, robbery, drugs, or any other issue of moral law.
Therefore, it is given:
The Bill of Rights was written to protect the States’ and the People’s political freedom from a federal government, and the Constitution is not a moral values document.
Only with this in mind can any person start to understand the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Because Hillary doesn’t understand our Constitution she won’t like the fact that the Constitution is not pro-life. WHAT?
Why? Because it would mean the Supreme Court’s decision to hear Roe v Wade violated the Constitution and should be overturned.
Because of the way our Constitution and Bill of Rights were written, they don’t oppose abortion either.
As an American Nationalist, I believe every Bill generated by Congress should pass a Constitutional litmus test. Everyone should look at all Bills and ask one question first, “Does the Constitution authorize this?”
I can dream, can’t I?