The U.S. Constitution is the greatest political charter ever adopted. Its words are sacred to the American people even two hundred twenty-three years later. It reflects the belief that government exists only with the consent of the governed. Without it, government has no legitimacy or authority over its people. The Constitution has as its philosophical basis the words of the Declaration of Independence, that “all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among them Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.”

To Americans, the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence are more than just poetic expressions of ideas. The words have true and specific meaning establishing the framework of the new nation. Today, a growing number of people seem to think its words are relative and that the Constitution is a “living document”. This idea is flatly contradictory to the Intent of the Framers and the cherished concept of the “Rule of Law”. The words of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence must always be revered for their true meaning based on the intent of Framers and not what others think they should mean.

At a young age, we are all taught about the Founding Fathers and quickly learn to revere them as great thinkers and leaders. They were truly great men living in an extraordinary time. It was a time when the law had become arbitrary, bending to the will of the King or the ruling class of England. The Founders wanted something different. They wanted to give full meaning to the law, separating it from the constant influence of men.

The Founders also wanted to ensure that the law could change if necessary. The Constitution is not static or unalterable. There is a clear procedure for amending the Constitution, allowing the people to alter or modify the law. Article V makes it clear that if the government and the people consent, the supreme law of the land can be amended. It does not allow for a King, the national government, or judges to arbitrarily change the law to reflect their own personal beliefs.

In the mid-20th century, a new judicial philosophy emerged that labeled the Constitution a “living document”. It was not meant to codify the exact thoughts and intent of the Founders but to lay out ideas that possessed a flexibility necessary for changing historical circumstances. This more liberal interpretation is dangerous. It transfers authority out of the law and into the minds of men, or more specifically, to the minds of those in power. Today, politicians argue for certain rules and laws that are contrary to the Constitution, but are able to justify them with the idea that a “living document” permits them to expand their power.

An example of the federal government bending the Constitution to its will is the current interpretation of the Commerce Clause. The Commerce Clause states that the Congress shall have the power “to regulate Commerce…among the several States.” This simple and straightforward clause has been bent to permit the federal government to make rules regarding elementary school standards, nutrition guidelines, gun control laws, and healthcare insurance mandates. The federal government has a strong desire to enact these laws but in order to make it legal they needed to find a clause to fit them under. The result was a loose interpretation of the word “commerce” to the point where the clause became a rubber stamp for government actions. Although recent Supreme Court opinions have started to place some limits on this clause, it is still interpreted as overly broad giving the federal government considerable power.

The abuse of the Commerce Clause is in clear violation of the Tenth Amendment, which 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.” The Founders anticipated that future politicians may try to expand the power of the federal government. The Founders had a strong fear of federal tyranny and therefore made clear their preference for state governments enacting solutions to new challenges, not the federal government. Today, our leaders believe the federal government is the only entity capable of providing solutions to all problems. Not only is this wrong, it is unconstitutional.

Another abuse of the Constitution is the government’s desire for strict gun control, or in some cases, outright bans on the private ownership of firearms. The Second Amendment states “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed”. The intent of the Founders on this issue could not be more clear. The writings of George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Alexander Hamilton, and James Madison all clearly show they intended the Amendment to guarantee that the people had the right to keep and bear arms. The recent D.C. v. Heller Supreme Court decision affirms the Framers’ interpretation of the Amendment.

In addition to a weakening of the Constitution, there have been recent government actions that blatantly ignore the Rule of Law. The United States, like every other country in the world, has immigration and naturalization laws that clearly define how one becomes an American citizen and who is permitted to be within our borders. These laws are under attack for being discriminatory, which is ridiculous because immigration and naturalization laws are by definition discriminatory against non-citizens. Unless opponents wish to do away entirely with immigration and naturalization laws, this argument is baseless. Opponents of immigration enforcement also believe it is permissible to simply not enforce or ignore laws they find offensive and attack those who wish to enforce those laws. This argument places the Rule of Law on its head. It is dangerous to allow men, let alone governments, to arbitrarily decide what laws to enforce and what laws to ignore.

Young Americans generally have a poor understanding of the Constitution and the Framers themselves. Young Americans also fail to see the importance of the Constitution in their daily lives, especially sections as mundane as the Commerce Clause. It is important that all Americans, Young and Old, have a better understanding of the Constitution and why mundane clauses have a major impact on their lives.

Previous generations have lived in a nation of laws, not a nation of men. It is essential that Young Americans are allowed to do the same. Restore America’s Legacy supports candidates that have an understanding and reverence for the Constitution and the Rule of Law. Although it is easy for candidates to say it in their speeches, Restore America’s Legacy looks closely at their issue positions, their writings, and their record to determine if they truly do have respect for the Constitution. This principle is the one that separates ideologically flexible politicians from great leaders that will help restore the primacy of the Constitution and the Rule of Law in this country.

Author Bio: J. Wesley Fox is the Chairman of Restore America’s Legacy PAC. He is a recent graduate of DePaul University College of Law and has been active in local and national politics for several years. He currently lives in New Jersey after growing up in the Chicago suburbs.www.restoreamericaslegacy.com

Category: Politics
Keywords: Constitution, Declaration of Independence, Rule of Law, Framer\\\’s Intent, Commerce Clause, Heller