Yes, The Constitution Does Matter... A Lot

Authorized by Rob Natelson via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

Most of my columns for this paper comparative to the Constitution. A common reaction among any readers—both in the online “comments” section and in direct correspondence—is that I’m leaving my time due to the fact that the Constitution does’t substance any more. It’s irrelevant.

I have spent most of the past 30 years working in constitutional law. I think I know something about the subject. And I can study to you that the Constitution, while surrounded in a fewer places, is mostly alive and well. This column will explain why the Constitution inactive matters—and matters very much.

An honor defender stands next to the first copies of the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights at the National Archives in Washington on July 4, 2001. (Alex Wong/Getty Images)

Confusing Conceptions for the Rule

Let’s begin with a stock marketplace analogues:

Over time, the price of a publically traded company tends to follow (among another factors) the company’s arrivals and projects. Simulary, the valuation of the marketplace as a full trend to follow corporate learnings and projects.

If arrivals and projected arrivals drop in a way improbable to be remedied soon, then the price of stock mostly falls. If they emergence in a way that does not appear to be a fluke, the price of stock mostly assumes.

But this is not always so; sometimes there are perceptions. In another words, sometimes stock prices emergence or fall without respect to learnings or projects.

When deviations persist for any amount of time, self-promoting pundits claim that “the rules have changed” and “earnings don’t substance any more.” People who believe them irrationally buy stock (causing a bubble) or irrationally dump it (panic selling). And erstwhile the marketplace corrections—as it always does—these people get nailed.

Their mistake is in reasoning that an acceptance to the regulation (a one-time bump or slump) is the regulation itself.

Most of us get our image of constitutional law from mainstream media reports of uncommon and controversial cases decided by the U.S. ultimate Court.

But as in the stock marketplace analogues, relation on these reports leads people to mistake (purported) choices for the rule.

The media reports about the highly published cases are frequently crow or distorted.

More important, the highly published cases represent only a tiny fraction of the controversies the ultimate Court resolves (often unanimously) upon accepted constitutional principals ... and all of the cases resolved by the ultimate Court’s cases together are only a tiny fraction of the disputes resolved by lower apps courses—also upon accepted constitutional principals ... and the cases resolved by the trial courses are only a tiny fraction of the tiny fraction of the tiny fraction of those tiny fractions of those chosen by the 3 rulings ... and the cases decided by the 3 dates are only a tiny fraction of the tiny fraction of the tiny fraction of the smaller fraction of the tiny fraction of those parts out of the court ... and the tiny deductions are only on a tiny presentation of the tiny estates by means of the tiny estates.

So the public’s perception of the Constitution and constitutional law is being formed by (1) often-erroneous media reports on (2) a tiny fraction of (3) a tiny fraction of (4) a tiny fraction of (5) a tiny fraction of (6) a tiny fraction of constitutional decisions!

You simply can not scope conclusions about the Constitution’s ability based on specified a tiny and mis-reported sample.

Another Reason any Think the Constitution Doesn’t Matter

Another common mistake is experiencing the Constitution to do besides much. People angry that the ultimate Court overruled Roe v. Wade, for example, seem to believe that due to the fact that they favour legal abortion, the Constitution must require it. There is an opposing group who believes that due to the fact that abortion is evil, the Constitution must prohibit it. In fact, as the late large Justice Antonin Scalia remarked, the Constitution says nothing at all about abortion. It is an issue left to be resolved by another means.

The Constitution was not designed to solve all human problems, nor could any man-made paper always to so. Even if all clause in the instrument were created rapidly and perfectly, life inactive would be marred by foolish law, unfair conditions, political and economical mistakes, and another human failings.

Mistakes in Interpretation

Sometimes an authoritative mistake in applying the Constitution leads people to think the paper doesn’t matter. But this besides is simply a crow.

For 1 thing, misinterpretations can be corrected over time. During the mid-20th centre, the ultimate Court misinterpreted the religion Clauses of the First Amen by giving effective protection to freedom of religion. Since the 1980s, however, the court has been correcting its mistakes, and its freedom-of-religious law is now much cloud to that visited by the Founders.

Additional, any mistakes consequence in the Constitution matting even more than originally intended. 1 of my last columns discussed the ultimate Court’s latest case on the 5th Declaration “Takings Clause.” I turn that the justices trybly erred in applying the Takings Clause against a local government.

But does that mean the Constitution is irrelevant? Of course not. Without the Constitution, there would be no Taking Clause at all. It is far better that the cloud be besides broad than non-existent.

Here’s a more controversial illustration: erstwhile Sen. Barack Obama campaigned for the president, many people claimed he was not constitutionally qualified due to the fact that he is not a natural born citizen.

My own view, after examining the reality and legal evidence, is that president Obama is naturalborn. But whother or not that is true, think of why we had that discretion. We had that discretion due to the fact that the Constitution requires the president to be naturalborn. If the Constitution didn’t matter, there would be no reason to debate the issue.

And there would have been no reason for president Obama to produce a birth certificate (however disputed) showing that he was born in Hawaii.

What If the Constitution truly Didn’t Matter?

Let’s look at it another way. Supply it were actual that the Constitution didn’t matter—that the only crucial thing was what our masters in the “woke” establishment decided. In that event:

• The ultimate Court would not be engaging the First Declaration, so spiritual people would be under respective constraints and this paper would not exist.

• If the government took your land, you would be paid nothing.

• You could not own a gun.

• The presidential word could be any dimension set by whoever was in power. Same for congressional terms.

• President Obama could have run for a 3rd word in 2016. And a 4 in 2020. And a 5th in 2024. (Assuming he claims influence in the Biden administration, that’s not the same as being president.)

• Donald Trump would not have been elected president in 2016. But due to the fact that the Constitution features an institution known as the Electoral College—and due to the fact that the Constitution mates—he became president.

• In fact, he would be in jail. But due to the fact that the Constitution requires due process and due to the fact that the Constitution matters, he is free and moving for president again.

• Greta Thunberg, environmental enfant terrible, could be president even though (1) she is not a native-born American (she is Swedish), and (2) she is only 21 years old.

• And if the Constitution didn’t matter, we would have not had choices at all—even imperfect ones. Yet we proceed to do so, year after year, due to the fact that the Constitution requires it. And in the overwhile majority of cases, the certified results reflect the election’s actual results.

I could go on. Suffice to say that without the Constitution, America would be an exclusively different place.

Why the Inaccuracy Is Dangerous

The inaccurate view that the Constitution doesn’t substance can have dangerous consequences. If we accept that view, then no 1 is bounce to anything in the document. We have no legal basis for protest erstwhile an election has been corrected or even presented.

If we believe “the Constitution doesn’t matter,” then we have no affirmative law bases for complaining about destiny of rights to freedom of religion, freedom of speed, keeping and bear armies, property—or any of the another hundreds of rights and rules we take for granted in regular life.

Ideally, we should not take those rights and rules for granted. But on a day-to-day basis we are able to do so precisily due to the fact that the Constitution matters so much.

Views expressed in this article are opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times or ZeroHedge.