President Donald Trump selected Amy Coney Barrett as a candidate as an associate Supreme Court justice for confirmation by the U.S. Senate. I was not able to witness the entire three day questioning process, but tuned in on some of it. I may have missed it, but I assure you there was one question that probably was not asked that I would have asked if I had the opportunity:
When you render your decisions on specific cases that come before the Supreme Court, will you apply the meaning of the Constitution for the United States of America (which is the original title of the document) as originally intended?
Original Intent or Living Constitution
Over the years, judicial philosophy has been changing from interpreting the Constitution from original intent toward a “living” or ever-changing meaning. In other words, should the historical context at the time when the Constitution was written be the standard of interpretation, or should it be adapted and altered by the influence of the ever-changing culture of the present time? The question is critical to the standard, or lack thereof, of what will be decided and how in specific cases that come before the court.
A Couple of Specifics
For example, the subject matter of immigration and race is on the front burner of politics today as we know. Originally, the Constitution for the United States of America gave power to the Congress to set forth the standard of immigration into our land.
“To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization…” – Article I, Section 8
The first law was specific to race:
FIRST CONGRESS. SESS. II. CH. 3. 1790.
CHAP. III. – An Act to establish Rule of Naturalization. (a)
SECTION I. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That any alien, being a free white person, who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years, may be admitted to become a citizen thereof, on application to any com-mon law court of record, in any one of the states wherein he shall have resided for the term of one year at least, and making proof to the satisfaction of such court, that he is a person of good character, and taking the oath or affirmation prescribed by law, to support the constitution of the United States, which oath or affirmation such court shall administer … – United States Public Statutes at Large, Vol. 1, p. 103.
The original intent of the Constitution was for “the People” and “their Posterity,” which was exclusively for the White race.
That truth is hated and viciously opposed in this racially diverse culture today. Additionally, it is politically accepted today that the very race of the People the Constitution was intended for is the one race vilified as unjustifiably discriminatory toward other races. And indeed, a major change in “civil rights” protection for all other non-White races (1964) and immigration policy (1965) was sanctioned by Congressional legislation. Original intent was cast aside subsequently by the Supreme Court.
How about the subject matter of money? The Constitution clearly states that Congress shall have the power:
“To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;” – Article I, Section 8
That should have been aggressively protected by Congress, but it finally succumbed to handing over the constitutional (and biblical) monetary system to foreigners who eventually have been able to create a defacto usuary/debt paper scheme that has ruined our People. Now, the “system” is going all digital.
Would Judge Coney Barrett declare the present scheme run by private individuals through the Federal Reserve and IMF banking cartel as unconstitutional per the original intent? I wonder if she would even understand that.
Original intent goes to, not just the original meaning of the Constitution when it was written, but this critical concept applies to biblical interpretation as well. Why are there so many ideas and conclusions about what the Bible says and means?
“When we find that in the explanation of certain parts of the Scriptures no two interpreters out of a whole class agree, we have great reason to presume at once that some fatal error lurks in their principles of interpretation.” – Milton Spencer Terry, Biblical Hermeneutics, (New York, NY: Phillips & Hunt, 1883), p. 161.
The concept of biblical interpretation must have as its foundation “original intent.” That is what I have based the Covenant Heritage Series and the Bible Mastery Boot Camp on in order to arrive at conclusions of fact from the preponderance of historical and textual evidence and consistently applying the law of non-contradiction.
Will Amy Coney Barrett do the same in the role she will now play as associate justice of the Supreme Court?
by Lawrence Blanchard, ND, M.Div.