“Judicial Activism,” Strict Constructionism, and Dominionism
I’ve been reading a great deal lately about the “Dominionist” sect of the Religious Right. For the uninitiated, this term refers to those people who wish to occupy seats of power within the American government so that they can enforce Biblical law upon the United States. Establishing “the Lord’s Dominion,” if you will.
This group, of course, has been leading the charge on social “issues” geared to arouse emotions and get out votes from “family values” religious conservatives. They are the first to cry “activist judges!” when a verdict is issued in favor of pro-science education, abortion rights, gay rights, or whatever their wedge issue du jour might be.
However, regardless of anyone’s opinion on any of these issues is, there’s a point that must be made about them. These issues are about extending rights beyond those explicitly declared in the Constitution. Even the Dominionists don’t argue with it; their websites are peppered with references to “special rights” and such. They will argue, as current Attorney General Gonzales has argued, that the Constitution contains no right to privacy and that is part of why their draconian notions of spying are supposedly legal. They don’t hide that their agenda is about denying rights to people.
Interestingly, these are the same people, in many cases, who called themselves “strict constructionists” in the 1990s. Remember that term? The people, almost exclusively right-wing, who opposed any court verdict that established a legal right that was not explicitly granted in the Constitution–if it was what they viewed as a “liberal” right.
The Dominionist movement does not support an interpretation of the Constitution that extends the rights of the people. But what do they support?
They support a Constitutional interpretation that extends the rights of the government to interfere where it has no business.Consider Justice Scalia’s infamous opinion on the the Lawrence v. Texas sodomy case:
State laws against bigamy, same-sex marriage, adult incest, prostitution, masturbation, adultery, fornication, bestiality, and obscenity are likewise sustainable only in light of Bowers’ validation of laws based on moral choices. Every single one of these laws is called into question by today’s decision; the Court makes no effort to cabin the scope of its decision to exclude them from its holding.
Reading past the legalese, one can conclude with confidence that Scalia supports the use of the government to legislate people’s private lives–to use it as a tool to support moral standards that have no impact on anyone beyond the persons in question and perhaps their immediate circle. Certainly not national security or even that nebulous concept called “the people’s interest.”
This is just one example of many. The Dominionist philosophy supports the establishment of a “Christian” theocratic government, operating through that which was established by the American Constitution, all the while spitting on it and perverting its original purpose.
What do you think the Founders intended for the Constitution and Bill of Rights to be? A document spelling out the rights of the American people, with absolutely nothing granted beyond what is explicitly written there? Or a document limiting the rights of the government with respect to passing laws that are unrelated or opposed to these aims:
“…[E]stablish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity…” (Emphasis added.)
Well, the writers of the Bill of Rights actually addressed that very point in a little thing called the Ninth Amendment. In case the “strict constructionists” have forgotten about this part of the original Constitution, here it is:
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Zing.
It point-blank says that the Constitution isn’t meant to limit the people’s rights to those that are spelled out, and that others not mentioned are retained.
Case closed.
