Should the criminal go free because the constable has blundered?
How crowded can prisons get before sentences must be shortened and felons turned loose?
Should anyone be able to commit murder and live? Should the state ever kill a killer? Who decides?
Should public school students be allowed to pray together in their classrooms at the start of the school day? At a football game? During commencement ceremonies?
If a church wants to expand its sanctuary, can a city zoning board interfere? If not, who says not?
Does a woman have a right to abortion, or does her unborn child have a right to life? Which right will be enforced, and how?
Is there a right to same-sex marriage? Polygamy? Prostitution? Recreational drug use? Doctor-assisted suicide?
Just how dirty can dirty books and movies get, and still be legal? Who decides whether and how to control children’s access to such things?
How should our legislatures and local governments organize themselves, draw their district lines, conduct their elections?
What’s the difference between “discrimination” and “reverse discrimination”? Can governments, colleges, landlords, employers, buyers and sellers practice either? Neither? Both?
You don’t. Federal judges decide. They decide many more such questions than they used to, and they rely more and more on their own opinions in doing so, while giving less and less heed to the intentions of the Constitution’s framers and the understanding of its ratifiers.
The activist judges and their
apologists say that’s a good thing, that’s how a “living” Constitution “grows
and evolves.” But as the federal judiciary’s control over such questions grows,
the ability of the American people to practice self-government withers. And for
many of the weakest and most vulnerable among us — those who lack the wealth and
status to protect themselves against violent crime — the price for that
incapacity is being paid in blood.
The Solution? A Fair Construction Amendment