Charlotte Observer Says Constitution is Complex and Repugnant

The U.S. Constitution was read on the House floor this past week for the first time in history. Many on the left portrayed it as a political stunt; the Charlotte Observer is no exception. However, they did acknowledge that it was a good reminder of the supreme law of the land.


Of course approval by Progressives comes with a caveat. Democratic House members skipped over passages that they deemed odious and repellant to their 21st Century sensibilities. The offended class decided to edit our history, instead of learning from it:

It was also a reminder that the Constitution was not perfect and has evolved as America has become more enlightened. Members of Congress left out entire passages of the original Constitution because they were so repugnant to 21st-century thinking and have been repealed. Section 9, Article I allowed for importing slaves; Article IV, Section 2 required that escaped slaves be returned to their owners. Another section in Article I pretended that Indians didn't exist and provided that each black person counted as just three-fifths of a person. The 18th amendment enacted Prohibition, one of the great constitutional failures in American history.

I would say that the 14th, 16th, and 17th Amendments has also been constitutional failures, but I wouldn’t skip over them.

The Editors at the Disturber couldn’t help themselves. They subscribe to the theory that the Constitution is a “living and breathing” document, meaning you can read anything into it. I guess you can, if you distort our history and language, as the House members did when they omitted huge chunks out of their “recital” this past week. An example of this is provided by that august paper:

America evolves. The Constitution requires amending. Interpretation of it evolves. The Founders themselves expected and wanted this.


Thomas Jefferson wrote in 1816:


"I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and constitutions. But laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, ... institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors."

Jefferson stated that institutions must advance with the times; that is why we have an amendment process. I don’t recall him saying anything about judicial oligarchies or evolving interpretations.

Finally, the Disturber concluded with this little gem:

Emphasizing selected aspects of it to accomplish one's political ends is intellectually dishonest, and misreads history.

And isn’t that what Democratic House members did when reciting our Constitution this past week? I wish the editors at the Charlotte Observer were intellectually honest with themselves.

Read more: http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2011/01/09/1965823/reading-constitution-reveals-its.html#ixzz1Aa45Zny0