Last week, after the announcement that the US Supreme Court had allowed a lower court ruling that declared prayer in public (government) meetings unconstitutional because too many of these were “Christian” I proposed the thesis that the ‘living breathing” Constitution idea was not in nature a legal doctrine but rather a political one. (Read the original post here.)

Remember that Life Reference is primarily a blog about our frames of reference, the things that shape our interpretation of the world around us.  It seems to me that if our frames of reference are worldly and secular, our view of life will be worldly and secular, whereas if they are Biblical in nature, so will be our view of life.  Of course while I advocate for a Biblical view of the world around us, the choice is entirely the reader’s as to which to accept.

With regard to this issue, what is at stake appears to me to be a fundamental choice between the view that the US Constitution is either consistent in its meaning or that it is only as true as the next court ruling.

I have posted a continuation of this discussion on my history blog, Pages from the Past.  In it, I have shown where the whole idea of a “living Constitution” originated, and it wasn’t from the legal community; it was from a College President who wanted to be President of the USA.  Please see : Woodrow Wilson and Constitutional Darwinism. to continue this subject.

Related articles

• Is Prayer Unconstitutional in Public? (lifereference.wordpress.com)