Tuesday, January 10, 2017

80% Of Americans Want "Originalist" Supreme Court Justices

Print Friendly Version of this pagePrint Get a PDF version of this webpagePDF

A large majority of Americans want Supreme Court Justices who will interpret the Constitution as originally set up by our Founders---and they say they want it to be an "immediate priority" for President Trump.

A new Marist Poll also has found that the reason 80% feel that way is because they want religious freedom restored---and it isn't just Republicans who feel that way.


On a personal note, I want to make you aware of an excellent new book titled, "Easy Steps To An Organized Life ---how to relieve stress, declutter and keep it that way. 
It's a great book written by a great author---a Seattle native and deeply committed Christian. Check it out. Here's the link

The poll shows that 89% of Americans "see protecting religious freedom as a priority, including 57% who describe it as an 'immediate priority' and 32% who consider it an 'important' one."

Among Republicans, 78% agreed that "originalists" should be appointed to the Court, with 50% of Independents agreeing.

But this isn't only a "Republican" or "Independent" result, even 31% of Democrats agree with this view.

However, that leaves 59% of the Democrats who do not want the Constitution interpreted as the Founders intended---meaning they apparently believe the Constitution is a "living document" that is to be interpreted by each generation as to what it really means.

This, of course, is a kind of paradise for secular progressives---relativists. Over the years they have discovered that the Constitution guarantees a right to abortion, the right to redefine marriage, the right to enter our country illegally without consequence, and a host of other hallmark issues of the progressive Left.

I found it interesting that by a 40 point margin---65% to 25%--- the vast majority of Americans also believe religious freedom should be protected even when it conflicts with government laws.

In modern times, Barack Obama has been the guiding light for those who want to use the Constitution to advance their far Left ideologies.

This is an excerpt from Obama's book, "The Audacity of Hope" (pp 52-54) in which he explains his position, why he holds it and why he disagreed with the late Justice Scalia--the seat that President Trump will appoint immediately following his Inauguration:

And so, when we get in a tussle about abortion or flag burning, we appeal to a higher authority—the Founding Fathers and the Constitution’s ratifiers—to give us more direction. Some, like Justice Scalia, conclude that the original understanding must be followed and that if we strictly obey this rule, then democracy is respected.
Others, like Justice Breyer, don’t dispute that the original meaning of constitutional provisions matters. But they insist that sometimes the original understanding can take you only so far—that on the truly hard cases, the truly big arguments, we have to take context, history, and the practical outcomes of a decision into account. According to this view, the Founding Fathers and original ratifiers have told us how to think but are no longer around to tell us what to think. We are on our own, and have only our own reason and our judgment to rely on.
Who’s right? I’m not unsympathetic to Justice Scalia’s position; after all, in many cases the language of the Constitution is perfectly clear and can be strictly applied. We don’t have to interpret how often elections are held, for example, or how old a president must be, and whenever possible judges should hew as closely as possible to the clear meaning of the text.
Moreover, I understand the strict constructionists’ reverence for the Founders; indeed, I’ve often wondered whether the Founders themselves recognized at the time the scope of their accomplishment. They didn’t simply design the Constitution in the wake of revolution; they wrote the Federalist Papers to support it, shepherded the document through ratification, and amended it with the Bill of Rights—all in the span of a few short years. As we read these documents, they seem so incredibly right that it’s easy to believe they are the result of natural law if not divine inspiration. So I appreciate the temptation on the part of Justice Scalia and others to assume our democracy should be treated as fixed and unwavering; the fundamentalist faith that if the original understanding of the Constitution is followed without question or deviation, and if we remain true to the rules that the Founders set forth, as they intended, then we will be rewarded and all good will flow.
Ultimately, though, I have to side with Justice Breyer’s view of the Constitution—that it is not a static but rather a living document, and must be read in the context of an ever-changing world.


This philosophy is reflected in President Obama's appointees to the Supreme Court. To a one, his appointees reflect his worldview.

However, 80% of Americans disagree.

Historically, America's Constitution is the oldest written constitution still in use today in the world.

Secular progressives continuously try to claim it is not, however, its ranking as the oldest written "still in use" constitution is confirmed in the US Senate website and by the National Archives, Encyclopedia Britannica and the Constitution Center in Philadelphia.

The Comparative Constitutions Project dates every "still in use" constitution in the world. The United States Constitution, ratified in 1787 and fully in place by 1789, is the oldest---by far.

You will note that the UK is also listed with the date of 1215, however, the UK has no written constitution, nor does England have a written constitution. The only British "Constitution" that exists is a set of rules and regulations constituted by jurisprudence and laws and various treaties and international treaties and agreements the UK has signed on to. They refer to it as an "uncodified constitution."

The date 1215 refers to the Magna Carta, which Barons forced King John to sign in 1215.

There are a couple of reasons why America's Constitution has stood the test of time.

First, it was drafted in an attitude of prayer.


The Constitutional Convention had been meeting for 5 weeks and was deadlocked. The entire effort to create a stronger union was in jeopardy. Ben Franklin, then 81 years old and perhaps the least spiritual man in the room, stood and made reference to the little progress they were making and called for the men to go to prayer telling George Washington and the others, "I have lived, Sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth-that God Governs in the affairs of men. If a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without notice, it is probable that an empire cannot rise without His aid."

Within days our Constitution was finalized and approved.

Secondly, our Constitution has stood the test of time because the generations that followed our Founders recognized it's exceptionalism.


A statue of Senator Daniel Webster can be seen in our US Capitol today. It stands in recognition of Webster because by most all accounts he is said to be the most effective senator in the history of the senate.

Webster, a second generation (1782-1852) United States citizen also recognized the exceptionalism of our Constitution: "Hold on, my friends, to the Constitution and to the Republic for which it stands. Miracles do not cluster, and what happened once in 6000 years, may not happen again. Hold on to the Constitution, for if the American Constitution should fail, there will be anarchy throughout the world."

During the past 8 years, we have endured an internal assault on our Constitution unlike any in our history.

I believe a restoration has begun.

Within days, President Trump will appoint a conservative "like Scalia" to the Supreme Court. Most likely he will have additional opportunities to do more of the same in the coming months and years.

Personally, I doubt the political establishment is prepared for the swiftness in which this new administration is going to move.

However, more importantly, I hope and pray the Christian community in America is prepared and willing to take her rightful stand in the culture. We stand on the threshold of a great opportunity to see our nation restored, but it must begin with spiritual restoration.

Daniel Webster also told his colleagues: "If we abide by the principles taught in the Bible, our country will go on prospering and to prosper; but if we and our posterity neglect its instruction and authority, no man can tell how sudden a catastrophe may overwhelm us and bury all our glory in profound obscurity."

"And," he said, "let us not forget the religious character of our origin."

Let's rediscover our true identity.

This is a time for the church to rise.

Be Informed. Be Inspired. Be Encouraged. Be Prayerful. Be Pro-Active


No comments:

Post a Comment

Faith & Freedom welcomes your comment posts. Remember, keep it short, keep it on message and relevant, and identify your town.