Consequences of this New Foundation

Law has indeed been reshaped in this country and this has brought about a transformation in America – or rather a crisis.  Harvard professor Harold J. Berman observed in 1971’s Faith and Order, that a massive loss of confidence in law is one major symptom of a threatened breakdown of our culture in America.  Such is the natural consequence of civil laws that stand in direct conflict with moral laws.   

In the course of time many Americans have come to a visceral loathing of all the officers of the court; judges, prosecutors and attorneys one and all. They know in their bones that something has gone terribly wrong with a system which can no longer rightly be called a justice system.

“… and to limit the federal government to its Constitutional boundaries.”

Constitutionalism is the principle that government can and should be legally limited in its powers, and that its authority depends on enforcing these limitations.  Associated with the political theories of John Locke and the founders of the American republic, constitutionalism is the "Rule of Law."

As the Declaration of Independence asserts, the only legitimate purpose of civil government is to safeguard the God-given life, liberty, and property rights of inpidual citizens.  The U.S. Constitution therefore sets up those boundaries that are meant to limit the government to this proper function.

However, not only is the source or foundation of American constitutional law being ripped out from under us as a nation by man-made evolutionary principles, so too is the concept of “constitutionally limited” government.  Today’s acceptable establishment view of the Constitution is that it is a “living document” whose meaning can and is being reinterpreted by judges to adapt to the changing times.

For three decades, Holmes brought his distinctively Darwinian bias to the Court. He spoke candidly: "I see no reason for attributing to man a significance different in kind from that which belongs to a baboon or a grain of sand."
A consistent evolutionist, Holmes declared that "the sacredness of human life is a purely municipal ideal of no validity outside the jurisdiction."

If right and wrong do not exist in any absolute sense, how can inpidual man justify an unalienable right to his life, his liberty, his property – that government must protect and cannot infringe upon?  If the meaning and limitations in the Constitution can change at the whim of judges based on philosopher/establishment evolutionary doctrinaire, can this document ever be relied upon to fulfill its purpose to secure the blessings of liberty.