Saturday, June 19, 2010

Nothing is Timeless

Wilder Publications recently added a disclaimer to its publication of the United States Constitution. It reads "This book is a product of its time and does not reflect the same values as it would if it were written today.  Parents might wish to discuss with their children how views on race, gender, sexuality, ethnicity, and interpersonal relationships have changed since this book was written before allowing them to read this classic work.” Pretty harmless, eh?

Apparently not so. This seemingly harmless statement has created outrage among Conservatives. They claim the Constitution is timeless and flawless. But it is far from that. Times change, people change, values change. The American people need to ask themselves, is the Constitution appropriate for the freedoms desired today? Does "We the People" mean literally "We the People", or should it be taken in its original context as white men? Does the right to bear arms mean I can have a missile launcher in my backyard? While a question like that may seem silly, arms are arms, whether pistols or high-tech missiles. To quote Glenn Beck, "I'm just asking questions." Not to mention that Wilder Publications places this disclaimer on all works it publishes.

If Progressivism, a movement to reform the ills of society, is cancer, then what is Conservatism? It certainly can't be less harmful than cancer. After all, it is trying to hinder improvement. Conservatism is nothing short of a degenerative disease, peeling away at the opportunities for America to do what she does best: improve. It won't be long until India and China surpass the United States as the leading nations of the world if Conservatives continue to limit her.

I think the Constitution is one of the greatest documents ever written. It ensures me my liberties and my freedoms. But that doesn't mean that the Founding Fathers who created this document could foreshadow the modern world. This is why amendments are necessary. If you are going to challenge the validity of statements questioning the Constitution, you might as well ask why any amendments to the Constitution were necessary.

And quoting Lincoln as a preserver of the Constitution is quite ironic. He himself challenged the Constitution by suspending Habeas Corpus during the Civil War. But I guess its alright to omit a fact like that if it compromises your entire argument.

Habeas Corpus fact provided by M. Patrick Morgioni.