living constitution? no, thank you.

The irrational panic produced by this "pandemic" has been revealing the actual state of the Union more than anything else, at least since 9/11.
As I keep pondering, in shock, about what is going on and how easily folks are letting go of freedom for the sake of security, another arena I'm led to delve into is how explicit the so-called "constitutional darwinism" has been manifesting in people's behaviors in only three months.
When asked in a poll what the five rights inscribed on the first amendment are, only 1 in 1,000 American citizens were able to name all five of them ("Simpsons Outpace US Constitution", CBSNews). One of the most abhorrent result is the advancement of a new legal theory concerning constitutional interpretation in recent decades. Instead of the Founding Fathers' intended "Originalism" (Original Intent and Textualism are also used as synonyms), which predominated for most of America's history, an alternative system was introduced and broadly accepted, known as the "Living Constitution" (Pragmatism or Positivism are also used as synonyms).
According to the outstanding work of John Eidsmoe, Christianity and the Constitution, one of the major aftermaths of such alien understanding of our founding document is that judges are now the ones to guide the "evolution" of laws, which leads people to believe that the original sources of law are the decisions of ... judges (of course!) According to the brilliant Wallbuilders' David Barton, what these judicial activists did was to turn the Constitution from a legal document into a sociological paper.
As affirmed by the SCOTUS liberal Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes in a speech on May 3, 1097,
"We are under a Constitution - but, the Constitution is what the judges say it is."
Another liberal Chief Justice, Earl Warren, said in 1958,
"The Constitution must draw its meaning from the EVOLVING standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society."
The concept of a Living Constitution that "evolves" to keep up with the needs of society may sound appealing. We are actually seeing this action in play right now with the coronavirus crisis! Nowhere in our four Founding documents there was ANY reference to the suspension of individual rights in times of a pandemic!!!
Under that approach, then, what we have is a bunch of unelected judicial elites making decisions on our behalf and imposing their own personal beliefs and agendas on us.
Mark Levin proposes a two-fold "cure" to this disease.
First, we should follow the advice of our first SCOTUS Chief Justice John Jay, who admonished us,
"Every member of the State ought diligently to READ and STUDY the Constitution of his country. By knowing their rights, they will sooner perceive when they are violated and be the better prepared to defend and assert them."
And secondly, Levin recommends us to use the power of the ballot box to remove Living Constitution proponents.
He believes, and I follow his lead in full agreement, that by using these two steps - knowing the Constitution and voting accordingly - the unique American constitutional republic can and will be, sooner than later, fully restored.

---