Social Justice and The Constitution


I graduated from seminary in Texas and within a few months I began law school in upstate New York. The move was enough of a culture shock but legal studies under largely secular liberal professors was even more so.

I was trained in seminary to study the Bible by reading it in the original languages, placing every word and sentence into its literary, cultural and historical context. I was trained to understand every passage of Scripture, as best possible, according to the meaning of the original author and audience before rushing to application. I still believe this is the way any document should be studied and applied but my law professors disagreed.

The Ivy League attorneys I studied under for thee years eschewed any attempt at devote time and attention to the intent of the authors of the United States Constitution. When I pushed back on this, I was told bluntly by one professor that he had no respect for the authors of America’s bedrock historical documents, he only cared about what is “fair.” He went on to argue that all attorneys argue the best case for his or her client and he considered his client to be a secular, progressive agenda that he believed would benefit the country in the long run.

The secular leftist approach to our judicial system is that whatever they deem “fair” or amenable to “progress” is the correct ruling even if it runs afoul of the very Constitution they swear to uphold and protect. Such an approach is the only way anyone could justify rulings such as Roe v. Wade (1973), in which the Supreme Court suddenly discovered a right to destroy an unborn child in the womb. It is the only reason the current nominee for America’s highest court is being run over the proverbial coals. The secular left view the Supreme Court as its “Super Legislature” which can make policy that doesn’t have the requisite support to pass Congress.

If you are a secular leftist you may applaud such an approach but be wary for this method is nothing short of Machiavellian (i.e., the end justifies the means), which is not an approach that one who holds Scripture as God’s Word can easily justify if at all.

Moreover, establishing precedent where justices are unbound by the Constitution has worked both ways. The Dred Scott ruling by a racist Supreme Court, which upheld and expanded slavery, was also a Machiavellian move (whose logic eerily resounds in Roe v. Wade).

America’s Founding Fathers viewed the Supreme Court as “the least dangerous branch” of government. They formed a Court whose only job was to apply a Constitution that the authors believed was easy to understand. Today, with the passing of more than 200 years, it takes a little effort. Fortunately, the Founders left us not only the text of the document but The Federalist Papers, James Madison’s notes on the debate over the wording, etc. Studying and applying the Constitution is much easier than doing the same with a Biblical text and, as such, no excuse exists for not doing so.

If you are a social justice warrior, the best thing you can do for the country in the long run is to demand the Constitution be studied and applied as the Founder’s intended in order to protect the judicial process from the whims of the majority of justices. If you find something objectionable in the Constitution, the document itself spells out how to amend it (Article V) and it has been so amended several times. If you want to curb the power of the unaccountable and truly give voice to the population as a whole, demand the Constitution be studied and applied as written. Otherwise, who knows what you or future generations will get!