Does the Constitution Still Matter?

I used to teach social studies and one of the most important concepts was that the Constitution was the Supreme law of the land. As we all learned it set up a system of checks and balances and guaranteed our freedoms with the Bill of Rights. Our soldiers take an oath to defend the Constitution and they fight not for the president, not for Congress, not for the Supreme Court but to defend the freedoms guaranteed by our Constitution. Over the past 225 years more than a million have given their lives for our freedoms.
How can we send young men and women into harm’s way and ignore the Constitution they defend? How can we ask them to sacrifice so much yet throw away the freedoms they fought for? How can we ask them to risk their lives to defend a Constitution even the Supreme Court ignores?
How can the Supreme Court rule 5-4 on the Hobby Lobby case? Has anyone heard of the free exercise clause of the First Amendment? Part of the First Amendment reads “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion nor prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” This guarantees the right to practice your religion. The government can not force you to violate your religion unless there is harm done to society.
Pearl Harbor and World War was not sufficient cause to force the Amish, Mennonites and Quakers to violate their faith and fight in the war. What cause today is so great as to justify forcing people to violate their religions or personal faith. A political payoff to Planned Parenthood is not justification for throwing out the First Amendment. Why should businesses and private institutions pay for something so personal as birth control in the first place? Why shouldn’t people pay for their own birth control? Shouldn’t the government stay out of our bed rooms? Wasn’t that the argument for legalizing contraception?
How can the Court rule 5-4 and make their decision based on a Clinton era law rather than voting 9-0 based on the First Amendment? This decision is in the tradition of Roger Taney and the Dred Scott Decision not John Marshall. Marshall fought to make the Court independent and free of political influence. The justices are supposed to base their decisions on what is right regardless of the desires of the president. They are to act as a check on the president’s power not as his servants. History is full of justices who ignored the intentions of the presidents who appointed them. Earl Warren is a great example of a justice who stood for freedom who protected the rights of the American people and did what he believed was right rather than what Eisenhower wanted.
Where are the Earl Warrens and John Marshalls of today, justices who know the Constitution and are willing to protect the American people from tyranny? Certainly, not on this Court!


Author: ronquinlan

To me the message is what is important. Feel free to copy and use anything on this blog. Some pieces were originally published by Catholic Lane so please give them credit. I am a charismatic Roman Catholic and former Social Studies teacher in Catholic Schools. Pieces I've written have been published on Catholi Lane, Catholic Exchange and the Women of Grace blog.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s