If he’d read the Constitution he’d know that the Framers foresaw the need for changes. But of course he’s read it. Perhaps he’s relying on his hearers’ never having read it.

The prescient Framers included Article V, which sets forth the ways in which the Constitution is to be amended. The ways do not include judges’ announcing what they think should be changed. The methods specified insure that the amending process will take enough time for the whole population to consider the proposed changes and then that the votes demonstrate broad popular support, so that once an amendment has been enacted it will be accepted by most people. Any method of changing the Constitution that doesn’t follow the procedures specified in Article V is ipso facto unconstitutional.

But Frieda, understand that now, after Grutter, after Lawrence, the liberals have at last cast off the last reins that had bound them. They’ve broken free. They know there’s no longer any force in the system that will stand against them and their wishes. It is this consciousness of victory and of freedom that Breyer is expressing, as he declares himself and his fellow judges to be the global legislators to America.

Yes, Mr. Auster, I know that. I wasn’t talking to Breyer; I was talking to any reader of this thread who might not reallize that he’s seeing a Supreme Court Justice justifying the overthrow of our Constitutional system. I’ve found that even some conservatives don’t know how to answer the assertion that “our Constitution is a Living Document.” In the college classes that I taught, perhaps one student in each semester had ever read the Constitution; they’d been allowed to sail through twelve years of “education” without having read the basic law under which they lived every day. Those students were also never taught critical thinking. That’s why it’s so easy for the Breyers to get away with their non sequitur: a) Times change and our law has to change with them; b) THEREFORE, judges have the right and obligation to make law.

Yes, it’s incredible. Constitutionalism had been, up through, say, the early 90s, one of the cornerstones of conservatism, though steadily weakening in its appeal. But since then, along with so much else, the conservatives basically gave it up. Now they don’t even have the language and the concepts any more. As with other liberal vs. “conservative” issues we’ve discussed, the conservatives are so immersed in the world created by liberalism that they have no separate ground from liberalism on which to stand or see things. The best they can offer is a holding action. Only a radical re-thinking of modern judicial liberalism can help conservatives gain a non-liberal perspective from which to resist the judicial liberalism in a serious way. At present there is not any impulse or will in the conservative movement to do that. Even Scalia and Thomas accept all kinds of improper precedents. However, we should be very thankful for them, as they are keeping the spark of America’s Constitutional soul alive, which is why the liberals hate them so much, even when the liberals are victorious.

A Supreme Court Justice saying this, no less!

We have to steel ourselves. We have to steel ourselves. We have to man ourselves, still, to face the liberal onslaught because the end is not in sight.

We have to keep telling ourselves, no matter what happens: “I know what the truth is, and this isn’t it. I know what the truth is, and this isn’t it.” Otherwise we risk losing our own minds and souls along with everything else — risk becoming the degraded slaves in Orwell’s “Nineteen Eighty-Four.”

Who would’ve thought it POSSIBLE, when we were children and adolescents growing up, that in a mere twenty or thirty or forty years’ time our own poor, weak, unworthy shoulders — OUR OWN — would be called upon by history to do what we could toward preserving nothing less than Western culture and Western values?

Who expected such an assault? Who DREAMT it when we were young? It was the LAST thing we expected! Yet, here it is and it’s no dream we can pinch ourselves and wake up from, but is really, truly happening!

This is a struggle, yes — an epic struggle we are engaged in. But what made our generation think it wouldn’t be called upon to undertake the biggest, most difficult struggle it could ever imagine having to undertake? Certainly the past three thousand years — back to Homer; back to Moses — made our generation no such promise. On the contrary, each generation did what it had to, and thanks to their unflinching dedication and sacrifice the precious heritage we were bequeathed was passed down.

Now WE must pass it down, and to our educations we must turn, to draw strength for what lies ahead — those selfsame Western and Judæo-Christian educations which are in contention now, which in school and at home formed and strengthened our generation’s minds and hearts — in contention precisely because the other side fears the truth and strength they instilled and want to keep that from ever again being instilled in young heads and breasts, lest those heads and breasts grow up knowing which side favors the wicked.

By their very success in defeating the other side, our educations will be in their rightness like a self-fufilling prophecy.

Unadorned really has hit the nail on the head when he said, “But what made our generation think it wouldn’t be called upon to undertake the biggest, most difficult struggle it could ever imagine having to undertake?” The answer of course is denial. It is expedient to believe race doesn’t matter or to believe countries don’t matter. Once you believe those things, you no longer have to worry about those things and you lose your race and your country.

Think about it people, the one world religion and government are coming to pass. And those who warn about it even with endless proof in the news today are called crazy. Biblical Prophecy is real.

I just quoted Unadorned’s above comment in a discussion at FrontPage. I was responding to another poster who was responding to my idea that liberalism must be subordinate to non-liberal principles:

“I wonder if this is at all possible or if we are sliding uncontrollably on the slippery slope. I’m not especially optimistic.”

http://www.frontpagemag.com/GoPostal/commentdetail.asp?ID=9126&commentID=137276

And now here’s Justice Ginsburg’s confirmation of this, from a link on today’s frontpagemag.com:

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20030803/ap_on_go_su_co/ginsburg_3

On a personal note, I found her comment on the ‘lone ranger mentality’ offensive, but revealing.

Phyllis Schlafly provides additional insight into this phenomenon in her latest article, “Can Globalism Amend Our Constitution?”

http://www.eagleforum.org/column/2003/aug03/03-08-13.shtml

She mentions the 2 recent disastrous Supreme Court decisions, as well as others, noting the international sources cited by the Justices.