The Politicus

Create | Share | Influence

'Awaiting to Exhale'

3 min read

Some of you may disagree, but the idea that the United States Constitution is not a living, breathing document is absurd. Were it not imbued with the capacity for expanding its judicial lungs, America would have suffocated on the choking fluids of its’ past injustices. If the Constitution were not breathing, I would still be gasping for breath from my undersized so-called 3/5ths of a human being’s lungs. My kids would have attended segregated schools, they would be riding in the back seats of buses, and searching for a water fountain to drink from. Were the Constitution not a living document, women would still need a permission slip from their husbands to get a credit card, vote, or even smoke. In 1966 the Ernesto Miranda v. Arizona case was decided by the Supreme Court giving all citizens the rights of legal counsel before questioning by the police and not be forced into incriminating ourselves.  

When the allowance was made for legal citizen militias, we did not have a standing army or police force. Licensing was not necessary nor were regulatory rights to clean air and water. I am the descendant of, and not a slave because, in January of 1865, an act of Congress changed the United States Constitution. Fifty-five years later white women were granted the right to vote with the passing of the 19th Amendment. Black Americans marched, lobbied, bled, and died before the Voter Rights Act of 1964 allowed my great-grandmother to vote, without anxiety, for the first time when she was 61 years old. A year later she was considered, legally, a full human being with all the rights of every American with the passing of the Civil Rights Act of 1965.  

This insistence on returning to 1954 by the Republican party is a slap to the face of America’s red, white, and blue cheek and where it has been trying to go for over 240 years.  

Yesterday, Trump nominee to the Supreme Court Amy Coney Barrett refused to uphold the Constitution, she claims is set in originalist stone:

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA): “Does the Constitution give the president of the United States the authority to unilaterally delay a general election under any circumstances, does federal law?”   

Amy Coney Barrett: “Well, Senator, if that question ever came before me, I would need to hear arguments from the litigants and read briefs and consult with my law clerks and talk to my colleagues and go through the opinion-writing process,” she said. “So, you know, if I give off the cuff answers, then I would be basically a legal pundit, and I don’t think we want judges to be legal pundits. I think we want judges to approach cases thoughtfully and with an open mind.”

Ms. Barrett similarly dribbled a direct question of  “the peaceful transfer of power” that any originalist would lay up off the backboard. Those questions are easy for even a first-year law student to answer.  Federal election law and the 20th amendment makes it clear. Elections are mandated to be held, “the Tuesday next after the first Monday in November.” The 20th Amendment states “the terms of the President and the Vice President shall end at noon on the 20th day of January.”  There is no ambiguity, nor a need to be opaque for the sake of judicial prudence. Judge Barrett and her three years of experience on the bench, is Mr. Trump’s handpicked mercenary to overturn Roe v. Wade and the ACA, make no mistake.

Vote in 2020 for Change—and your lives.  

Notify of

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

The Politicus is a collaborative political community that facilitates content creation directly on the site. Our goal is to make the political conversation accessible to everyone.

Any donations we receive will go into writer outreach. That could be advertising on Facebook, Twitter, and Reddit or person-to-person outreach on College campuses. Please help if you can:

Would love your thoughts, please comment.x