Greetings from Saturday Morning! I was reading one of my favorite theologians--the late, great James Montgomery Boice--and he said something about theology and interpreting Scripture that I think also applies to interpreting the Constitution. He said that "often heresy results from emphasizing one part of biblical truth at the expense of other parts, as a result of which even that one part is distorted."
Does this not apply to the central issue of Con Law I, the relationship between the enumerated powers of the national government and the reserved powers of the states. When the Court applies "as you wish" deference to national power (e.g., to the Commerce power and the Necessary and Proper Clause), does it not distort both the enumerated powers of the national government and the right of the people to be governed closer to home under the reserved powers and the 10th Amendment? To avoid constitutional heresy, the Court should keep constitutional doctrines straight and in balance. As-you-wish deference overemphasizes national power at the expense of Tenth Amendment federalism and liberty.
Just a thought I had on a Saturday morning when studying the Gospel of John and Boice's wonderful expositional commentary.
No comments:
Post a Comment