The Alinskyites Try It Again

The American Thinker has a short piece up by Mark J. Fitzgibbons entitled Those dumb, dangerous "fundamentalist Constitutionalists", which is worth a read.

Constitutionalists are viewed on the other side as people not quite right in the head; as addled, Luddite, crazy, even as terrorists.  Such a view betrays a Leftist conceit that things are different today. "Why," they say, "they didn't have cell phones or the Internet back then. You need new laws and the Constitution is outmoded." What the Left is overlooking is that all the new technologies we have ever developed from the alphabet to the Internet simply allow us to do what we have always done more efficiently.  The telephone, the Internet, jet planes, modern medicine, heating and air conditioning, the M1911 pistol, whatever it is, only help us to do the things we have always done faster, or cheaper, or more efficiently.  What the founders knew, from reading the Bible and history, is that man and his motives have not changed, and barring a miracle, will never change.  So, they didn't write the Constitution for simply the era in which they lived.  They wrote it to be timeless.

Go and read it, if you don't believe me.  It's a short document.  I'll wait...

Impressed?  I was.  The language is plain, simple, free of legalisms and jargon.  Notice that it describes the branches of the Federal Government and the duties of each.  It describes how to decide when laws conflict at the Federal/State level, and at the Treaty/Federal level.  Notice too that a lot of the powers are left to the States and the People.  If we were following the Constitution, Massachusetts would be free to have a healthcare system, but the Federal Government would not.  The States would be free to set up welfare systems, while the Federal Government would not.  In the sense that it tells you how to decide, but it doesn't specify results, the Constitution is a process document, not a political one.  It only becomes political when people wish to reinterpret it to say what it does not say because they can't persuade the people.  Notice too that it even has a way to amend it.  Those who say the amendment process is too hard should take note that it has been amended 27 times.  Every member of Congress and the Executive is sworn to uphold it, not the latest interpretation of it by the Supreme Court.  So, Christine O'Donnell's "litmus test" sounds like a good one for a Senator to keep in mind as she looks at new legislation, and performs her duties under the Constitution.

Finally, do not be dissuaded by articles like the one's in Politico and Slate.  What they are doing is nothing more than an old Alinskyite trick.  They used to do this to conservatives.  Isolate the enemy, freeze him, ridicule him.  Don't let them get away with it.  Proudly fight back.  The moral high ground is with the Constitutionalists.  We are the true patriots.