Anthony Esolen's new version of the Constitution

Clearly our Constitution is obsolete. All it does is restrict courts from making the political decisions they want to make. So, instead of having judges pretend they are complying with the Constitution when they know they are actually subverting it, how about some new lanaguage?

Anthony Esolen has just the thing:

We the People of the United States of America, to relieve ourselves of the burdens of virtue and the nuisance of self-government, and to secure the blessings that flow from the collective and the isolated individual, do establish this Constitution. 

There shall be a Supreme Court of the United States, composed of nine lawyers. All cultural questions shall be submitted to their purview, and shall be decided according to their predilections.

For the purposes of this Constitution, “the people” shall be construed as a mass of individuals, without any other political standing but that which is granted to them by their participation in the electoral process.

The Supreme Court shall be charged with expunging all religious language, imagery, allusion, reasoning, and custom from every civic space, at the level of the nation, the state, the county, the municipality, and the school. “Freedom of religion” shall signify the national government’s permission, under conditions conducing to peace and order as construed by the government, for individuals to enter houses of worship and engage in activities that have no bearing on anything of importance in political life.

All civically expressed customs regarding the sexes individually and their relationship with one another shall be overridden, at the decision of the archons of the Supreme Court.

This Constitution decrees that men and women, as such, do not exist.

Read the rest here.

More WWJD Constitutional Misinterpretation Sightings

The WWJD (What Would Jefferson Do?) School of Constitutional Interpretation has reared its ugly head again in the 2010 campaign. Preachy proponents of the preposterous view that Thomas Jefferson's sentiments expressed in a letter to Baptists written years after the writing of the Constitution are somehow binding on Constitution interpretation are reported to be lecturing another candidate on how he should ignore the plain language and the clear intent of the First Amendment in favor of the secularist view that the First Amendment means exactly the opposite of what it says.

This time, it's happening in Denver, Colorado.

If you are worried about being accosted by one of these people (careful of being wrestled to the ground and having your head stomped on), just be sure to carry with you an actual copy of the Bill of Rights as well as a list of the states that had established religions at the time of the Constitution's signing.

Once they begin their sermon, just begin reciting it and chanting the names of the states. After they hear it several times, they will begin sputtering about "separation of church and state" as if it was part of the language of the Amendment even though its not.

After a few more minutes, they will begin babbling something about the 14th Amendment and how it somehow applied to the states the promise that established state religions would not be disestablished by Congress, resulting in exactly the opposite effect.

Keep reciting the Amendment and chanting the state names until they have become fully logically incoherent. As soon as they are laying there, panting on the ground, exhausted from their attempts to justify their position in the face of the rational, linguistic, and historical facts, just fold up your copy of the Bill of Rights and stick it in their pocket on the distant chance that they will actually read it and realize how bone-headed their position is.

It's all you can do.