- Name: EdCurrent
- Expert testimony on Congress,Courts & Constituiton
- Christian Patriots For Life
- Treowth In Times Of Madness
- Library of Pro-Life Literature
- Libertarians for Life Literature List
- Expert Testimony on Article 3
- The Moral Question of Abortion, Dr. Stephen Schwarz
- Government by Judiciary: The Transformation of the 14th Amendment Second Ed., Raoul Berger
- Michael S. Paulsen, Briggs & Morgan Professor of Law
- William J. Quirk,Professor of Law
- John Eidsmoe, Professor of Law
- Lino A Graglia, A. Dalton Cross Professor of Law
- Vision Forum
- Congressman Ron Paul of Texas
- The Liberty Committee
- Herbert W. Titus
- Institute on the Constitution
- Between Two Holocausts
- Worldview Chart
- Religion and the Founding of the American Republic(Library of Congress Exhibition)
- Center for Bioethics and Human Dignity
- Vindicating the Founders
- NET Bible
We the People Act(HR 3893 IH)March 4, 2004 To limit the jurisdiction of the Federal courts, and for other purposes. Mr. PAUL (for himself and Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland) introduced the bill in the 108th Congress and needs to be introduced in the 109th Congress.
Saturday, December 4
"In his speech to the Federalist Society, Scalia offered a detailed description of his approach to constitutional interpretation. In his view, Supreme Court justices overstep not only their authority but also their expertise when they try to answer some of society's most divisive moral questions in legal cases such as abortion. He says moral issues should be resolved by elected political leaders, not unelected judges."
"Other than offering the anecdote of the fundraising letter, Scalia did not mention the chief-justice issue during his lecture. Instead, he focused on what he sees as the problem of judges becoming involved in issues that he believes have no place in a court of law."
"He offered examples from the US Supreme Court - abortion, gay rights, the death penalty, gender equality at military schools, and assisted suicide."
"Under a regime of static law, it was not difficult to decide whether under the American Constitution there was a right to abortion or to homosexual conduct or to assisted suicide," he said. "When the Constitution was decided, all those acts were criminal throughout the United States and remained so for several centuries. There was no credible argument that the Constitution made those laws invalid."
"Of course, society remained free to decriminalize those acts [through legislation], as many states have," he added. "But under a static Constitution, judges could not do so."
One justice's vision of role of the courts, November 16, 2004 edition Warren Richey Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor
Laws and Standards - Do They Evolve?
The single most influential jurist of the Twentieth Century was United States Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. His massive treatise, The Common Law, supplanted Blackstone's Commentaries as the premier text for law students. Holmes taught "the life of the law has not been logic, but experience," and argued that it was the responsibility of courts to direct the evolution of law. Because right and wrong do not exist in any absolute sense, judges must determine which standards are most appropriate at a given point in the evolution of a society.
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." He authored the landmark decision in Buck v. Bell upholding a Virginia eugenics law mandating the involuntary sterilization of people the State deemed undesirable.
It is better for all the world if, instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime, or to let them starve for imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind.
Holmes and his contemporaries laid the foundation for legalized abortion, no-fault divorce, the legalization of homosexuality, and the rejection of the Framers' vision for Constitutional interpretation. Today, most courts have embraced an evolving standard for Constitutional interpretation, rejecting the notion that the Constitution must be interpreted in light of the meanings intended by the Framers.
Darwinian Roots of Judicial Activism
Pearcey analyzes "the crucial role played by the Darwinian view of origins" in the development of American legal philosophy. "Darwinism is not only a biological theory," she emphasizes; "it is also the basis for a comprehensive world view -- implying a new philosophy of mind, knowledge, morality, and law." Pearcey sees a direct connection between Darwinism and the postmodern view that "the only objective and absolute truth is that there are no objective and absolute truths." She argues that a "thorough-going critique" of judicial activism "must begin with Darwinism as a scientific theory." Pearcey advocates taking "the intellectual battle into science itself. The controversy over Darwin versus design is not a peripheral issue," she insists, "but lies at the heart of the cultural crisis of our day."
Evolution and the Law:"A Death Struggle Between Two Civilizations" by David Barton
The fact that governments do need to change ("evolve") and to incorporate social adjustments (i.e., the ending of slavery, the granting of suffrage to women, etc.) makes the argument to "modernize" the governing documents appealing to many. And thus many followers of Darwin urge the need for the Constitution and other governing documents to be flexible, living, and organic-to evolve.
Perhaps the first individual successfully to champion this belief was Christopher Columbus Langdell (1826-1906), dean of the Harvard Law School. Langdell reasoned that since man evolved, then his laws must also evolve; and deciding that judges should guide the evolution of the Constitution, Langdell introduced the case law study method under which students would study the wording of judges' decisions rather than the wording of the Constitution.
Under his case-law approach, history, precedent, and even many of the principles specifically enshrined in the governing documents, were deemed hindrances to the successful evolution of society. As John Dewey summarized:
The belief in political fixity, of the sanctity of some form of state consecrated by the efforts of our fathers and hallowed by radition, is one of the stumbling blocks in the way of orderly and directed change. 
Justice Holmes agreed, urging that "the lawyer's task . . . was to participate actively in freeing the law from those archaic doctrines that prevented the law from consciously fulfilling its role of promoting social policy,"  because "the justification of a law for us cannot be found in the fact that our fathers always have followed it. It must be found in some help which the law brings toward reaching a social end." 
Justice Cardozo agreed, declaring:
If there is any law which is back of the sovereignty of the state, and superior thereto, it is not law in such a sense as to concern the judge or lawyer, however much it concerns the statesman or the moralist. 
Justice Louis Brandeis (1856-1941) therefore encouraged the Court to break new ground and lead society in new directions, urging, "If we would guide by the light of reason, we must let our minds be bold." 
Even though individual Justices and legal educators had encouraged evolutionary law, it was not until Earl Warren (1891-1974) became Chief Justice that there was finally a majority of Justices on the Court willing to embrace that view. One of those Justices (now in the majority) was William Brennan (1906-1997), champion of what he termed "the evolving understanding of the Constitution," "the 'living' Constitution," "the freedom to reinterpret constitutional language," "a malleable Constitution," the Constitution's "power of adaptation," and "the Constitution's 'suppleness.'" 
Consequently, during Warren's sixteen year tenure, the Court became a powerful societal force, striking down numerous long-standing historical practices while acknowledging that it was doing so without any previous precedent.  In short, the Court thus publicly affirmed that it had finally arrived at its fully evolutionary aspiration, no longer bound by history or precedent.
Under this current theory, judges are solely responsible for the evolution of the Constitution, and it is living and organic according to their decree. As Justice Cardozo acknowledged, "I take judge-made law as one of the existing realities of life."  And Chief-Justice Charles Evans Hughes (1862-1948) similarly declared, "We are under a Constitution, but the Constitution is what the judges say it is." 
Harvard Professor Steven Wise summarizes this radical revolution in legal theory occasioned by the adoption of Darwin's principles:
"To understand the strong normative appeal of evolutionary models, one must first appreciate that American law, like biology at the time of Darwin, faces the problem of providing a theory of creation which does not invoke a Supreme Being." E Donald Elliott, "The Evolutionary Tradition in Jurisprudence," 85 Columbia Law Review 38, 91 (1985). Elliott, who believes that the manner in which law is affected by the ideas that it routinely borrows from other disciplines has been largely unexplored, sets sail by chronicling how the Darwinian idea of evolution has affected the jurisprudential work of such legal scholars as Holmes, Wigmore and Corbin. Id. See also Jan Vetter, The Evolution of Holmes, Holmes and Evolution, 72 Cal. L. Rev. 343, 362 (1984) ("Holmes' The Common Law is first of all an account of legal change, and its object in this respect is to exhibit the workings of Darwinian evolution in law"). Evolutionary jurisprudence was often shunned during the middle half of the twentieth century due to that period's association of evolution with Spencer's racist and reactionary Social Darwinism. Elliott, at 59, 76. It is shunned no longer. Id. See Roger D. Masters, Evolutionary Biology, Political Theory and the State, in Law, Biology & Culture-The Evolution of Law 171 (Margaret Gruter & Paul Bohannon eds., 1983). 
Yet, is the fact that the Constitution is now a living, malleable, evolving document, necessarily bad? After all, society does change and should not necessarily be bound by decisions made two centuries ago.
Significantly, the framers agreed with this thesis-they understood that times would change and therefore so should the Constitution. However, they would have vehemently disagreed with the mechanism by which this change occurs today.
The framers made clear that when the meaning, and thus the application, of any part of the Constitution was to be altered, it was to be at the hands of the people themselves, not at the feet of the judiciary or through the usurpation of any legislative body. For this reason, Article V was placed in the Constitution to establish the proper means whereby the people might "evolve" their government. As Samuel Adams explained:
[T]he people alone have an incontestable, unalienable, and indefeasible right to institute government and to reform, alter, or totally change the same when their protection, safety, prosperity, and happiness require it. And the federal Constitution, according to the mode prescribed therein, has already undergone such amendments in several parts of it as from experience has been judged necessary. 
My greatest mistake as a pro-life person was in thinking Roe v. Wade arrived by itself. I didn't want to link abortion to other controversial subjects, which scared or confused me, detracting from the obvious atrocity of butchering a living, unborn child. Because of my narrow focus, I ignored the horrific world-view and the socio-political-financial machinery fueling abortion.
Like many pro-life people, I felt that the origin of the species was a matter of God's choice of methods--but not a pro-life concern. Busy in local pro-life matters, I believed evolution was an "education dispute," a controversy I could, gratefully, sit out.
I realized that evolution by natural selection has been the fundamental pro-life issue since Darwin himself. His argument that biologically inferior people threaten to deprive intellectually superior people of food and resources established a scientific-sounding rationale for genocide, which is used today by the abortion-based population control and family planning establishments, as well as others bent to this day on improving the race by laboratory methods.
Scientists, it seems, should be the last people to need reminders about the importance of facts. A good scientist cannot have too many facts, because they are grist for the scientific mill as it grinds out explanations and theories about the world around us.
Why, then, do so many scientists ignore certain facts of life as they line up to support abortion and to engage in destructive fetal and embryo research? Why do they obscure or deny the fact that human life begins at fertilization? Why are so many involved in population control? Why do some have a deep prejudice against people with disabilities and people of color?
Since the defeat of Nazism, evolutionists have been at pains to conceal the obvious connection between Darwin's theory of "survival of the fittest" and Hitler's ideology of a death-struggle between superior and inferior races. Their chief tactic: to claim that Hitler's "social Darwinism" was a perversion of "true" Darwinism. But in this stupendous work of intellectual history, Richard Weikart conclusively proves that Hitler's views were not only based firmly on core Darwinian principles, but widely echoed by leading Darwinist scientists, philosophers, and ethicists of the late 19th and early 20th centuries -- and that it was only after worldwide revulsion at the horrors of the Holocaust that such views disappeared from the Darwinist "mainstream."
With impeccable documentation, Weikart demonstrates that many leading Darwinian biologists and social thinkers of the pre-Hitler era believed -- and celebrated the fact -- that Darwinism overturned traditional Christian ethics, especially those pertaining to the sacredness of human life. In its place, they exalted evolutionary "fitness" (especially in terms of intelligence and health) as the highest arbiter of morality. Thus, whatever "improves" the race by favoring the strong and eliminating the weak is justified morally -- and this included not only euthanasia and abortion for certain groups, but even infanticide and genocide, all ultimately embraced by the Nazis.