Eagle Forum
EF Twitter

Alerts Nominations Architects vs. Activists Court Cases Courts & Culture Links
We the People Court College Curbing the Courts Court Comedy Law Library Resources
VOL. 14, NO. 1February 17, 2012
The 2012 Elections: The Constitution Must Win!

The elections of 2012 are, more than any election before, a referendum on the continuation of the U.S. Constitution as it has existed for over 220 years. The Constitution is in mortal danger, and the last few months have not been good ones for our fundamental law, if the publicly expressed criticism of it voiced by influential American leaders is a barometer of its health. On July 4, 2011, the Time magazine cover featured an image of the first page of the U.S. Constitution, overlaid with the bold question, "Does It Still Matter?" The article then proceeds to paint a negative picture of the Constitution. The document is old and has become increasingly irrelevant, useless, etc. in a society characterized by such "modern, post-Constitutional" conditions as America's technology, economy, and foreign policy challenges — problems the author finds our current Constitution inadequate to handle.

Google Ads are provided by Google and are not selected or endorsed by Eagle Forum
Then on January 30, 2012, one of the current U.S. Supreme Court's most radically Reconstructionist and elderly judges, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, hurled a sharp insult at our venerated Constitution in an interview on Egypt's Al-Hayat TV. "I would not look to the U.S. Constitution if I were drafting a constitution in the year 2012. I might look to the constitution of South Africa," she declared. Why? Because, Ginsburg complains, "[the U.S.] Constitution is "a rather old constitution." [If "advanced" age is a sign of dysfunctionality, irrelevance, etc. it would seem that Justice Ginsburg should have retired from our Supreme Court long ago. At age seventy-nine, she is, by several years, the oldest member of the Court.]

Shortly thereafter, on February 7, 2012, our Judeo-Christian Constitution suffered another blow from a long-time enemy — the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. A three-judge panel of the "Nasty Ninth," ruling in Perry v. Brown, upheld the federal district court's finding that Californians' recently approved ban on homosexual marriage violated the U.S. Constitution. This flies in the face of a vote of 7 million Californians who approved "Proposition 8" in 2008. But with their now-infamous mixture of lethal Humanistic philosophy and Reconstructionist constitutional theory, two of the three Perry judges voided Proposition 8 partially because it "targets a minority group." The Court also found that defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman is "so irrational that it is inexplicable on any grounds other than animosity and antipathy [and] is baseless," states Alliance Defense Fund attorney Brian Raum. This ruling so undermines both key constitutional guarantees (e.g., "liberty," and the "rule of law") and a fundamental societal institution — traditional marriage/family — as to deal them a death blow.

Viewed in perspective, the lack of success of the homosexual marriage movement is actually a stinging rebuke to the anti-constitution Reconstructionist forces. In recent years, 31 states have voted to "preserve marriage as the timeless, universal, unique union between husband and wife," explains attorney Raum. The homosexual movement has therefore had to resort to a totally anti-democratic, anti-morality [tiny] minority of federal judges, such as the Tyrannical Twosome on the Ninth Circuit, to achieve its goals. Indeed, it would be hard to find clearer evidence than this of just how "modern" — just how "in touch" — with contemporary Americans our Constitution really is, Justice Ginsburg and Time magazine notwithstanding.

We must view these frontal assaults on our outstanding Constitution in conjunction with the blatantly anti-constitutional actions taken in recent months by the governmental officials in Washington, D.C. The picture that emerges is that of America's foundational document under vicious siege by Humanist/Reconstructionist forces suffering from a severe case of "hate-the-Constitution fever," in which condition they neither understand the Constitution and its environment nor evidence any desire to do so. The current condition in which we now live, therefore, may well be described as it is in conservative spokesman Mark Levin's new book, Ameritopia: The Unmaking of America. Levin concludes that "We now live in a Post-Constitutional America."

The elections of 2012 are, therefore, a MUST WIN battle for America's constitutionalist patriots, if our Constitution, our culture, and our country are to survive and thrive. It is imperative that we trumpet all across the land the clarion call to action implicit in the impassioned, even oratorical, pronouncement of an American president hardly known for impassioned oratory — Calvin Coolidge. On July 5, 1926, President Coolidge declared:

"It is often asserted that the world has made a great deal of progress since 1776, that we have had new thoughts and new experiences which have given us a great advance over the people of that day, and that we may therefore very well discard their conclusions for something more modern. But that reasoning can not be applied to this great charter. If all men are created equal, that is final. If they are endowed with inalienable rights, that is final. If governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, that is final. No advance, no progress can be made beyond these propositions. If anyone wishes to deny their truth or their soundness, the only direction in which he can proceed historically is not forward, but backward toward the time when there was no equality, no rights of the individual, no rule of the people. Those who wish to proceed in that direction cannot lay claim to progress. They are reactionary. Their ideas are not modern, but more ancient, than those of the Revolutionary fathers."




For information and orders visit: Blackstone Institute

Google Ads are provided by Google and are not selected or endorsed by Eagle Forum
PurposesPrinciplesPrograms Personnel