Saturday, July 17, 2010

A quickie…on the Constitution

You all know how much I love The Coastal Journal, and its all purpose persona Gina Hamilton, a liberal feel-gooder of epic dimension.

I’ve had her “opinion” piece of July 1st in my stack for two weeks now, and it’s time I make appropriate disposition.  She titled it “The Declaration…or the Constitution?”

If you ever wanted conclusive proof that our population is loaded with folks who can’t see any value or purpose or structural merit in founding principles or similar constraints upon our government, Gina is here to make the point.

To begin with, Gina asserts:

The Declaration of Independence was essentially a call to arms, and carries no force of law.  For instance, although the Declaration refers to a ‘Creator’, the Constitution makes no such reference, and indeed, establishes a strict wall of separation between church and state.

A call to arms?  Fine.  But ‘a strict wall of separation?’  Poppycock, balderdash, and folderol. 

The clear language of Amendment I says “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof….”  The words ‘strict,’ ‘wall,’ or ‘separation’ are nowhere to be found.  Except in the imaginations of those who find the constraints, well, too constraining.

Next, Gina lets us know that she finds our founding principles lacking in literary merit:

it was the dry, pendantic (her spelling) language of James Madison’s Constitution that we live with today and which truly forms the basis for our grand experiment.

But worry not. as Gina tells us:

the Constitution is a living document that should and does reflect the changing nature of America’s evolution and growth as a society.

In other words, no matter what you think the Constitution embodies, it is no more binding or permanent than is the makeup of your compost pile or tomorrow’s weather forecast.

As a matter of fact, Gina expects that:

The Court that will be seated in October will make many important decisions, just as former courts have done, and will share in the role of driving American society forward.

As you can tell, Gina is convinced that the role of the Supreme Court is to enact progressive social policy.

So what lesson do we learn here?  First, Gina should rename “The Coastal Journal” as “The Coastal Progressive,” since it is her purpose to use the weekly as her personal ideological manifesto.

Second, before she writes, Gina should learn to read, and more important, comprehend what she reads.  And teach her son and heir to do the same.

From all indications, she has not yet reached that milestone.  La Dolce this or that and other cutsie gimmicks notwithstanding.


  1. These same people who believe in a living Constitution are the first to invoke stare decisis providing the decision is ther favor.

  2. The people like Gina are dangerous in that they have a forum from which they can spout off their inanities, yet by doing so show a complete lack of knowledge of the Constitution, and what the Founding Fathers gave up to provide us with our freedoms. A living document? She's spouting the Obama talking points. The Tea Party movement is an indication that we wont be fooled any more by politicians and would be politicians as Gina.