|
Declining morals are responsible for misinterpreted laws  Mark Cook If a nation is founded upon certain principles and governed by a document designed for a "moral and religious people," can that nation continue if it becomes wholly different from what its founders envisioned? If a people cease to be moral and religious, is the document created for their governance still effective, or does it become void? Certainly the Constitution is a marvelous document. It seems, however, that adherence to the principles upon which it was created is on the wane. Strict construction has been tossed aside as a relevant form of interpretation. The modern judiciary generally favors loose interpretation, straying from the notes written by the framers and composing a march of its own. For example, the notion that abortion is protected as part of the right to privacy wanders far from the morals held by the framers. Though the Ninth Amendment does protect rights not enumerated in the Constitution, the judiciary's ability to dig that one out is astounding. The idea of killing the unborn, commonly viewed as a feminist position, was abhorrent to original feminists like Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Susan B. Anthony. The stance of current feminists is an example of America as a whole; both have drifted far from the moral standings of their founders. Concerning the nonexistent constitutional separation of church and state (the phrase appears nowhere in the document), the modern judiciary declares that prayer, the Bible and the Ten Commandments have no place in public schools. This stance varies greatly from that of the founders, who built schools for the chief purpose of theological education and intended the First Amendment to protect the church from the state. The Second Amendment was created to maintain an armed citizenry. The argument that this article in the Bill of Rights does not protect individual gun ownership flies in the face of the intentions of great founders like Thomas Jefferson and James Madison. The whole point was that if every man were armed, any standing army would be greatly outnumbered and unable to inflict totalitarianism by force. Any argument to the contrary has no historical foundation, yet this fails to deter those who insist otherwise. Certainly the freedom to speak our minds on the issues and badmouth politicians without fear of imprisonment is priceless. But the notion that James Madison or John Adams ever intended to protect everything from public profanity to "works of art" comprised of fecal matter is ludicrous at best. Yet our courts rule that our mothers and children are due no protection from public vulgarity because such is "lyrical" to some. Our military has a proud tradition, sprouting from a group of farmers with muskets to the finest war machine in the world. Created to "secure the blessings of liberty," our military is the means by which this nation defends its very existence. Modern society, however, views our armed forces as an instrument of social experimentation. Can women handle combat? We'll sure find out, even if we have to risk our national security to do it. Can a squad of men perform cohesively if one of them is blatantly homosexual? Again, we can put our national integrity and security on the line to find out. George Washington would shudder at such recklessness. The cry for constitutional protection for some vaguely imagined "right" erupts most frequently from those whom the Constitution was never intended to govern. The Constitution was designed for a "moral and religious people. It is wholly unfit for the government of any other." John Adams' words ring with profound truth. An America that has no sense of history, chooses not to remember its roots, has no sense of the intent of the framers or of their moral principles and decisively turns away from all things moral and religious cannot expect adequate government from our Constitution. The document cannot be adequately adjusted to compensate for immorality and religious abandonment. America cannot expect order and justice if it insists on pursuing secularism and immorality. We have no document designed for such a people |
