Many have distorted Constitution

Wednesday , February 12, 2014 - 1:33 PM

Contributed, Gerald J. Boyum

Editor,

I would like to respond to the Feb. 6 guest commentary, “The Constitution and Utah’s claim to state’s rights.” Which “constitution” is being referred to here?

It’s certainly not the version that was intended by our Founding Fathers.

James Madison, primary author and president warned: “Do not separate text from historical background. If you do, you will have perverted and subverted the Constitution, which can only end in a distorted, bastardized form of illegitimate government.” Major distortions and changes are listed below.

1) Marbury v. Madison, 1803: This was a rationalization by the Supreme Court for seizing a power not granted to it by the Constitution. As creators of the Constitution, the people or states were the logical arbiters of constitutionality issues. The Preamble to the Constitution begins with “We the people.” When and how was this authority transferred to any branch of the federal government?

2) Darwin’s “Origin of Species”: Published in 1859, it was used to deny existence of a Creator God.

3) Rise of legal positivism: Replacement of transcendent, biblical, natural-law standards with “legal positivism” started in the 1930s and 1940s. This is relativism applied to law——no objective, God-given standards of law. Again, when and how was this massive sea-change in legal philosophy approved by the people or states?

4) Separation of the Declaration of Independence as a framework for interpreting the Constitution: Well into the 20th century, the Declaration and the Constitution were considered inseparable and interdependent——like a charter and by-laws of a corporation. The Declaration established the foundation and core values that were to be used in forming our government; the Constitution was never intended to be interpreted applied apart from the principles listed in the Declaration.



James Madison had it right. Judges using nothing more than personal opinions (theirs or other judges) are in violation of “original intent” and their oaths which are similar to what American military personnel fought and died for: “...to support and defend the Constitution of the United States...”.

Now, it’s “rule of men” (law is what we say it is) instead of rule of law as originally intended.

Gerald J. Boyum

Ogden

Get the Standard-Examiner Advantage.