Constitutional Changes of the Future—Part 2

Privileges or Immunities Clause of the 14th Amendment

The text of the “privileges or immunities clause” of the 14th Amendment reads as follows: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

Since shortly after the Civil War, the privileges or immunities clause of the 14th Amendment has been understood as protecting a relatively limited array of rights that are a function of American federal citizenship, such as the right to be heard in courts of justice and the right to diplomatic protection. In defining the protections of the privileges or immunities clause in this manner, the Supreme Court has rejected the argument that the clause also protects rights that are a function of state citizenship, asserting that this would lead to federal courts serving as a “perpetual censor” of state and local governments. This decision has served as a bulwark of American federalism.

Although a considerable amount of federal judicial authority has since been achieved over the states through interpretations of the due process clause of the 14th Amendment, many proponents of a “living and changing Constitution” seek additional federal oversight of state and local laws. Their strategy in this regard is to refashion the privileges or immunities clause as a new and essentially unlimited bill of rights within the 14th Amendment. The practical consequences of this would be to authorize federal judges to impose an ever broader and more stultifying uniformity upon the nation. Whatever modicum of federalism remains extant at the outset of this century, considerably less would remain tomorrow.

Changes such as the one outlined above would be another strike in favor of more and more power for the Federal Government and less power for the people to act through their elected representatives.

Much of this post was excerpted from IMPRIMIS April 2010.

Constitutional Changes of the Future—Part 1

As you look at our America, do you ever get the impression that we are living in a country that has drastically changed from the old America you studied in school—the America of ethics, morals, and true religion? Well, if you have that impression, you are exactly right. The America of today does not have the moral anchors that were plainly expressed by our founders.

George Washington said on October 3, 1789 as he proclaimed a national day of prayer, “It is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the Providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits, and to humbly implore His protection and favor.”

Daniel Webster wrote in 1821, “If we abide by the principles taught in the Bible, our country will go on prospering and to prosper; but if we and our posterity neglect its instructions and authority, no man can tell how sudden a catastrophe may overwhelm us and bury all our glory in profound obscurity.”

The U.S. Supreme Court wrote in 1892, “Our laws and our institutions must necessarily be based upon the teachings of the Redeemer of Mankind. It is impossible that it should be otherwise; and in this sense and to this extent, our civilization and our institutions are emphatically Christian.”

On the other hand, modern thinking is characterized by such statements as this one by John Dewey (often called the father of modern education) in the early 20th Century: “…faith in the prayer-hearing God is an unproved and outmoded faith. There is no God and there is no soul. Hence, there are no needs for the props of traditional religion. With dogma and creed excluded, the immutable is also dead and buried. There is no room for fixed, natural law or moral absolutes.”

President Obama has made his position clear in a group of interesting quotes: “We are not a Christian nation. …therefore, the Bible isn’t common ground for all Americans. …therefore, the Bible can’t be the template for how we govern.”

At one time we had a constitution that embodied very different values than the ones which are espoused today by American society, as a whole. And these days, we are seeing that our Constitution is considered outdated and unfit for continued use as a guide for our government. The court system is continually finding new and liberal ideas hidden in its words, so that its precepts are hardly recognizable as the words of its writers. As we will see in the next six blog posts, our Constitution is in the process of drastic change that will very probably take place within the next fifty years. These ideas will be excerpted from IMPRIMIS, April 2010.