Authority: Problems with Current Interpretations of the Constitution

This is part of a series of posts on the doctrine of Authority. Click here to see the entire series.


Up until this point I have been dealing strictly with the US Constitution as it is written.  As we have seen, there are many things that should cause grave problems for Christians in the official written documents.  But, we are told that the Constitution is a “living document” that is always evolving to “meet the needs of modern society”.  As a result, many of the things in the Constitution that are not currently politically popular have been abandoned or ignored.  In addition, many things that are politically popular have been “discovered” in the Constitution.  It is these constitutional discoveries that we need to consider lastly.

The Constitution as it was originally written was designed to separate political power.  The Legislative Branch was entrusted with the power to make law whereas the Judicial Branch was supposed to interpret and apply the law to everyday situations.  It was never envisioned by the original signers of the Constitution that the Supreme Court would one day come to make new law by means of their judicial decisions.  Nevertheless, that day has arrived and today we live under the scourge of Supreme Court judicial decision law that is triumphed as Constitutional law.  This creates another problem for Christians who swear an oath to uphold the Constitution.

When a Christian swears an oath to uphold the Constitution, is he swearing an oath to the Constitution as it was originally written or as it is currently interpreted?  There are vast differences between the two Constitutions.  I have already conclusively proved that it is morally impossible to swear an oath to the Constitution as it was originally written.  What about current Supreme Court versions of the Constitution?

Just a couple of examples will be sufficient to prove that the Constitution as it is currently interpreted is even worse than the Constitution as it was originally written.

1.  Abortion.  The US Supreme Court has found a Constitutional right for a woman and a doctor to conspire together to kill an unborn baby carried by the woman.  Since that right was discovered in 1973 tens of millions of unborn babies, potential US citizens if they had only been born, have been murdered.

Taking an oath to defend the Constitution of the United States as it is currently interpreted by the Supreme Court means that Christians are telling God that they are fully prepared to defend the murder of tens of millions of human beings as a right granted to them by the State.

2.  Homosexuality.  The US Supreme Court has found a Constitutional right for a homosexual couple to be considered a “family” from the perspective of the federal and state governments.  Because of this constitutional right Christian insurance agents may now be forced to sell insurance products to homosexual couples and not be permitted to exclude them because they do not consider them to be a family.  Such discrimination would be illegal and bring the full wrath of the government and the homosexual political lobby down upon any Christian who would dare to argue that homosexual couples are not families.

Taking an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States as it is currently interpreted by the Supreme Court would mean that a Christian would be telling God that homosexuals are legitimate family units and that God’s opinion that they should be executed is in error.

3.  Social Security.  Few today understand US history well enough to be aware of the Constitutional challenge that the social security program created.  Today Social Security is such a part of our lives that to even question its constitutionality is to make one look like a bit of a fringe element fanatic.  This was not always so.  When Social Security was originally framed there were many in Congress who deemed it to be unconstitutional because it was recognized as  essentially theft from the younger tax payers of one generation to buy the votes of older tax consumers  in another generation.  The challenge to Social Security fell short in the Supreme Court (thanks to FDR’s packing of the court with folks willing to vote for his program) and today Social Security is considered to be a Constitutional right.

Most Christians have never thought this issue through from a biblical perspective.  I believe it is possible to make a biblically principled argument that Social Security is immoral.  Taking a vow to uphold the Constitution as it is currently interpreted would therefore include upholding an immoral Social Security system.

Today the Constitution is ignored by all  branches of government and whatever the Legislative, Judicial and Executive branches tell us is constitutional is, by definition, constitutional.  I have to question how a Christian could ever make an oath to uphold a document that is so ephemeral.

View all posts in this series

Leave a Reply