Why This is the Most Important Election in History

Who says Republicans and Democrats can’t agree? Every four years, politicos and pundits, both left and right, come together in a harmonious hymn of hyperbole: “This is the most important election in history!” they sing.

I think hyperbole is responsible for all of the world’s problems. Still, this time nobody’s exaggerating. What happens on Nov. 6 really is of critical importance. America’s future really does hang in the balance.

We’re in uncharted territories. We’re lost. We stand dazed at cliff’s edge – legs wobbling – with big government winds at our back. Under President Obama, the reasons for this election’s unparalleled significance are piling up like pink slips in the private sector, like credit rating downgrades, like zeros on the national debt.

Yet, as I see it, there are nine black-robed reasons in particular that reign supreme.

And those reasons never get a pink slip.

In Federalist No. 78, Alexander Hamilton wrote: “The judiciary, from the nature of its functions, will always be the least dangerous to the political rights of the Constitution. … [T]he judiciary is, beyond comparison, the weakest of the three departments of power … [and] the general liberty of the people can never be endangered from that quarter.”

I know. Settle down.

Alas, Alexander Hamilton was obviously no better with a crystal ball than he was with a dueling pistol. For better or for worse (hint: for worse), today’s judiciary – through the constitutionally erosive drip-drop of judicial attrition and congressional submission – has, instead, become the most powerful branch of government.

Today, rather than the properly balanced, decentralized constitutional republic our founders envisaged, we live, to a large degree, under a very much centralized judiciocracy. (That is, when President Obama’s not circumventing the Constitution via executive fiat.)

William Howard Taft, who served as both our 27th president and our 10th Supreme Court chief justice, had unique insight into the dichotomy between the framers’ intent, and today’s reality. He summed it up well: “Presidents come and go, but the Supreme Court goes on forever.”

Indeed, due to the creeping misalignment of separation of powers, the function of appointing Supreme Court justices is almost certainly the most significant thing any president can do. Though it defies the High Court’s original construct, these nine unelected, well-meaning, yet very human, individuals profoundly steer law, public policy and our larger culture in perpetuity.

So much for the balance of powers.

Therein lies the problem. Conservative columnist Andrew McCarthy noted in March that four of the nine sitting U.S. Supreme Court justices are in their late 70s and early 80s.

“We wish them all well,” he wrote, “but the brute fact is that whoever we elect as president in November is almost certainly going to choose at least one and maybe more new members of the Supreme Court – in addition to hundreds of other life-tenured federal judges, all of whom will be making momentous decisions about our lives for decades to come.

“If you don’t think it matters whether the guy making those calls is Mitt Romney or Barack Obama,” concluded McCarthy, “I think you’re smokin’ something funky.”

Speaking of “smokin’ something funky,” during Thursday night’s vice presidential debate, Joe Biden touched on the Supreme Court. He agreed with McCarthy: “The next president will get one or two Supreme Court nominees. … For Mr. Romney, who do you think he’s likely to appoint? Do you think he’s likely to appoint someone like Scalia … ? We picked two people. We pick people who are open-minded.”

And, of course, by “open-minded,” Biden means “not bound by those pesky constitutional limitations intended to avert government tyranny.” He means liberal “living constitutionalists.”

To be sure, the next president may well appoint one, two, three or even four new justices to the U.S. Supreme Court. As voters, this should be our most critical point of focus: ensuring an originalist, strict constructionist majority. If Mr. Obama is re-elected and appoints just one more Ruth Bader Ginsburg, forget it. America, as our founders envisioned her, is gone.

This is why, after the primary, I went from an outspoken Romney critic, to a cautiously optimistic Romney supporter. He has pledged: “I will appoint conservative, strict constructionists to the judiciary.”

Still not sold?

President Obama has already shown who he’ll appoint. In Justices Elena Kagan and Sonja Sotomayor – nice though they may be – he has stacked the Court with two radical counter-constitutionalists who share his belief that the Constitution “is not a static, but living document and must be read in the context of an ever changing world.”

Naturally, if the Constitution is “ever changing,” the Constitution is meaningless.

But it gets worse. Obama has also called this – the very founding document upon which our laws, public policy, indeed our very freedoms rest – an “imperfect document,” a “living document … that reflects some deep flaws in American culture.”

Yikes.

Moreover, during the 2008 campaign, Obama lamented that the Supreme Court, under Chief Justice Earl Warren, failed to “break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution.”

Let that sink in a moment. In his own words, this man – a man solemnly sworn to uphold the U.S. Constitution – has betrayed utter disdain for it. He has, in essence, admitted that he views our most sacred founding document as a “constraint” against his thinly veiled efforts to “fundamentally transform” America into Greece.

Thank God our Founding Fathers predicted that men like Barack Obama would come and go. And thank God they had the wisdom to plan accordingly.

Patrick Henry once said, “[L]iberty ought to be the direct end of your government.” Today, we have it exactly backward. Four more years of Barack Obama, and government will be the direct end of your liberty.

Still thinking of sitting this one out?

I hope not.

Matt Barber (@jmattbarber on Twitter) is an attorney concentrating in constitutional law. He serves as Vice President of Liberty Counsel Action. (This information is provided for identification purposes only.)  

Comments

comments

About J. Matt Barber
Matt Barber is founder and editor-in chief of BarbWire.com. He is an author, columnist, cultural analyst and an attorney concentrating in constitutional law. Having retired as an undefeated heavyweight professional boxer, Matt has taken his fight from the ring to the culture war. (Follow Matt on Twitter: @jmattbarber).
  • Screeminmeeme

    Terrific article addressing an issue that a lot of voters never consider.

    When you look at the ''balance of power'' within the Supreme Court, you realize how imperative it is that conservatives be appointed.

    ''There are really only two ways to interpret the Constitution -- try to discern as best we can what the framers intended or make it up."....Ann Althouse.

    A few years ago, when I realized that Obama....a ''Consititutional professor'' ...held such contempt for the Constitution, I knew it could not bode well for America if he were elected. And sure enough, since becoming President, he has been acting just like someone who has no respect for it.

    The importance of electing Romney cannot be overstated when one considers the alternative. And people also need to be reminded of how critical it is that the Republicans retain the House and gain the Senate or Hairy Reid will be in the position to prevent Romney from successfully seeing his agenda implemented. And Obamacare will become more solidly entrenched in every aspect of the government.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_O24NYT5HOQNDEJ3TUT5QOTLOF4 TM

    Well, if obama wins this country is done and we will soon be under sharia law to please obama's muslim brotherhood.

    • Chuck

      More likely under UN control and the world court. Both he and Sec Clinton favor ceding sovereignty to the UN.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1323763523 Marcella Covault

    Good article. I do not believe in an "evolving" Constitution as that would lead, IMO, to a destroyed Constitution. We've lasted longer than most Republics under the gem that is the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights. To see judicial decisions, current and past presidential actions, and even Congressional actions chip away at citizen rights is disgusting and discouraging. Now, that said, extremism in any form is a problem, and one major concern with Republican appointments to the SCOTUS is the potential for turning back equal rights for women (e.g.,overturning Roe v. Wade). Sorry, but a beginning fetus just doesn't have the rights of a mature woman--that's being said from the viewpoint of a woman who is past childbearing age but who believes that if a woman is deprived of choice in pregnancy, she is deprived of a basic constitutional right to control her own body. So, there is a real dilemma here for me. Pick the apparently fiscally irresponsible Dems (who also seem to embrace the sociopathic "animal rights" movement's attacks on agriculture and pet breeding) or pick the hopefully fiscally responsible Repubs (who philosophically don't appear to embrace women's equality and who have mixed results on supporting the sociopathic AR movement, depending on how the political winds blow). Seems to me it may be a choice of the lesser evil, as defined by the voter, and that's tragic for our society!

    • http://www.facebook.com/dave.fafarman Dave Fafarman

      @facebook-1323763523:disqus I agree that Barber's article is excellent, and I also like YOUR post. (I seem to be in a minority there -- first up arrow -- too bad; I'll call it as I see it even if I'm all alone.)

      In trying to recover our Constitutional framework (a worthy project), many conservatives have gone off the deep end. For instance, they point to the Declaration of Independence's phrase, "endowed by their Creator", oblivious to the question of just how applicable that may be. It's particularly insidious because it IS the correct principle -- certainly better than an alternative such as "endowed by their government" with certain "abitrary rights". But it doesn't always work. For an extreme example, look up "Grayson Walker" and ask yourself what rights he was "endowed" with. It was suggested to his parents that he be aborted, but being good Catholics (I suppose) they wouldn't hear of it.

      I have a sense of dread that the pro-lifers will be responsible for throwing the election to Obama, indeed, may have already done so.

    • gypsieghostgirl

      A woman has the control over her body...she could have said NO, she could have used protection, she could have made him pull out...there are MANY WAYS she has control over her body...but once a baby is conceived, she has already made that decision!!! The saying goes something to the effect...you can choose your actions but you cannot choose the consequences of those actions!!!

  • agbjr

    This election is not about Liberal versus Conservative nor Democrat versus Republican, it is about the Communist Manifesto versus the Constitution. It is about the Constitution!

    ROMNEY/RYAN 2012 ...
    to restore the Constitution and preserve OUR Republic.

  • http://www.missiontoisrael.org/ Ted R. Weiland

    If you're putting your hopes in any Republican President (let alone one like Romney) nominating godly, conservative judges, you've been smoking something funky.

    THE MOST IMPORTANT ELECTION will be when America returns to the Biblical means of election of Biblically qualified men, made impossible by Article 6's ban of Christian tests oaths. For more, see Chapter 5 "Article 2: Executive Usurpation" of "Bible Law vs. the United States Constitution: The Christian Perspective" at http://www.missiontoisrael.org/biblelaw-constitutionalism-pt5.php.

    • Laubach

      When has there ever been a Biblically qualified man elected as president? or when has a biblically qualified man even run for president? You are not selecting your church's next pastor or elder, my friend. It is hard enough to find someone who is Biblically qualified to do that. We have two choices for the next president. Your "pious" opinions, if heeded by the ignorant, will only bring about Obama's re-election and the destruction of the USA as we know it.

      The only person Biblically qualified to be President is the Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ! Until He returns, we have to elect imperfect sinners to be our president. In November, It will be either Obama or Romney. Please choose wisely!

      Lord Jesus, Come quickly!

      • http://www.missiontoisrael.org/ Ted R. Weiland

        Laubach, you hit the proverbial nail on the head. Because Article 9 banned Christian test oaths for federal officials (and thereby Biblical qualifications), there has not been a Biblically qualified candidate since the humanistic (as per the Preamble), antichristian (as per Article 6), and polytheistic (as per Amendment 1) Constitution was ratified.

        Find out how much you really know about the Constitution (and what it's done to us) as compared to Yahweh's moral law (His commandments, statutes, and judgments). Take our Constitution Survey at http://www.missiontoisrael.org/constitutionsurvey/constitutionsurvey.php.

        • Laubach

          Who ever said that the framers of the constitution were trying to create a Biblical document? They were creating a government document, which is quite possibly the greatest government document ever created, that works in the real world (this world).

          What you are proposing (in the little bit I read from your document) will not work in our world until Christ returns. Therefore, it is of little use to this discussion re: the preceding article. You have set up an ideal (which is great), but useless to us until Christ occupies the earth as Lord of Lords.

        • http://www.missiontoisrael.org/ Ted R. Weiland

          So what you're really saying is that Yahweh doesn't want Christian influence upon earthly governments until Christ returns and that He must have been displeased with what the Puritans initially formed that produced governments of, by, and for Him (established upon His perfect law and altogether righteous judgments--Psalm 19:7-11) rather than of, by, and for the people (based upon man's fickle edicts).

          This thinking, which tragically pervades modern Christianity, is what Christ described in Matthew 5:13 as salt that's lost its savor, good for nothing but to be trampled under the foot of man in contrast to the Christianity that's described in 2 Corinthians 10:4-6.

        • Laubach

          Of course, Christians should be involved in government as well as all aspects of society being salt and light.

          Sadly, the truth of the abuses of puritanical government is well documented and is exactly why what you are proposing will not work this side of Christ's return. Don't get me wrong, I love the puritan era and have read multiple banner of truth volumes. But, there ability to govern was severely lacking as they tried to legislate strict morality upon the governed. The Pharisees and Saduccees did not do a very good job of this either and Jesus confrontation of their abuses led to his crucifixion.

          The Christian's relationship with government is described in Rom 13:1-7.
          Matthew 5:13 has nothing to do with the government or our relationship to it, nor does 2 Cor 10:4-6.

        • http://www.missiontoisrael.org/ Ted R. Weiland

          The Puritan governments worked perfectly as long as they stayed true to the perfect law of Yahweh and His altogether righteous judgments (Psalm 19:7-9). Things went bad when they strayed from Yahweh's law (just like things have gone wrong--hardly could be much worse-because the constitutional framers established the Republic upon their own laws instead of Yahweh's.) Consequently, their mistakes are evidence for, not against, doing it according to Yahweh's morality as codified in His commandments, statutes, and judgments.

          The only time the Puritans can be equated with the Pharisees whose traditions of the elders (which were circa 500 AD codified into the antichrist Babylonian Talmud) is when they substituted Yahweh's law with their own (much the same as the constitutional framers did).

          Christian relationship with government is indeed described in Romans 13:1-7, and Verses 3 and 4 dictate that the only government Paul is describing is one controlled and ruled by Christians.

          T

        • Laubach

          Psalm 19:7-9 is referring to attributes of God's Word (Scriptures). These verses have nothing to do with human government.

          You have created a utopian ideal that will never be achieved this side of Christ's return. I love the puritan era, but their government of legislating and enforcing morality to the "nth" degree was their shortcoming and is very closely linked to the "torah" era of the Pharisees at the time of Christ. Legalism breeds religious pride. Pride does not equal godliness.

          The Puritan era was possibly the greatest christian era in church history. Ephesians 2:8-10 brings about godliness through devotion to our Savior and His church, not devotion to government.

          You said:
          "Christian relationship with government is indeed described in Romans 13:1-7, and Verses 3 and 4 dictate that the only government Paul is describing is one controlled and ruled by Christians."

          There is no contextual support to back this and this statement is absurd. This passage is referring to God's providential control of all governments (even the most wicked and godless of governments i.e. the Roman government).

        • http://www.missiontoisrael.org/ Ted R. Weiland

          "Psalm 19:7-9 is referring to attributes of God's Word (Scriptures). These verses have nothing to do with human government" Precisely, government of, by, and for Yahweh rather than a humanistic government of, by and for the people. So what you're really saying is that unregenerate men with their fickle immoral edicts can do a better job of ruling other men than can regenerate men with the immutable and perfect law of Yahweh.

          "You have created a utopian ideal...." No, only Yahweh can create utopia; it's ours to do our best in obedience to Him to see it realized to whatever degree we can in our lifetimes here on earth as it is in heaven.

          "The Puritan era was possibly the greatest christian era in church history" And, yet, you equate the men who responsible for it with the Pharisees.

          "There is no contextual support to back this and this statement is absurd." The contextual evidence is Verses 3 and 4.

        • Laubach

          Where in Scripture are we commanded to to set up this government that you are proposing? You have taken every Scripture that you have quoted out of its context to apply it to "a YHWH government" that we are never commanded to create.

        • http://www.missiontoisrael.org/ Ted R. Weiland

          First, you're saying that I've taken every Scripture I've quoted or referenced out of context, does not make it so. You've provided no evidence whatsoever that I've done so. I'll let the readers judge for themselves.

          You're question requires too much explanation for this forum. For anyone interested, the answer can be found in "Law and Kingdom: Their Relevance Under the New Covenant" at http://www.missiontoisrael.org/law-kingdom.php, which also happens to be the first and second chapters of "Bible Law vs. the United States Constitution: The Christian Perspective."

        • http://www.facebook.com/jhenrymartin Henry Martin

          Sorry, Ted, although you make good points, the fact is that nothing in the Christian teachings of even the Puritans requires a theocracy as you propose. The church is free to rule itself by Biblical principles, but not to insist that an earthly kingdom do so. Jesus said that his kingdom is not "of this world."

          The Pilgrims ran from the state church, and unfortunately the Puritans followed and attempted to establish a state church in the colonies out of the reach of the authorities "back home." The Plymouth colony was not the only colony over here -- not even the first -- and it was the Jamestown colony that prevailed. We got what we got and now we have to live with it. It's not the Bible, but we who follow the Word are not bound by the law of the land to obey laws that go against our conscience.

          Yes, the US is a secular state by design. As such it cannot require that its leader be a Christian. However, we are free to oppose a non-Christian if we wish. Or we can just chose to only vote for a Christian . As much as we might hope for a perfect world, we do not have a mandate from God to rid the land of apostates and pagans. Our mandate is to avoid the apostates (in religious settings) and reach out to the pagans. If religious freedom for pagans did not exist, then they would most likely not chose to come to the US in the first place. Once here, our job of reaching them becomes that much easier.

        • http://www.missiontoisrael.org/ Ted R. Weiland

          Henry, thanks for your input. If I might, let me please respond.

          HM: " the fact is that nothing in the Christian teachings of even the Puritans requires a theocracy as you propose."

          TW: I think you need to read some more of the Puritans and those who wrote about them: For example, William McGuffey : "Their form of government was as strictly theocratical
          insomuch that it would be difficult to say where there was any civil
          authority among them distinct from ecclesiastical jurisdiction. Whenever
          a few of them settled a town, they immediately gathered themselves into
          a church; and their elders were magistrates, and their code of laws was
          the Pentateuch…. God was their King; and they regarded him as truly and
          literally so….' (William Holmes McGuffey, McGuffey’s Sixth Eclectic Reader (New York, NY: American Book Company, 1879) p. 225."

          William McGuffey was undoubtedly influenced by the writings of renowned early American preachers such as John Cotton:
          "The famous John Cotton, the first minister of Boston …
          earnestly pleaded 'that the government might be considered as a
          theocracy, wherein the Lord was judge, lawgiver and king; that the laws
          which He gave Israel might be adopted….' At the desire of the court, he
          compiled a system of laws founded chiefly on the laws of Moses…." ( Jeremy Belknap, John Farmer, The History of New-Hampshire (Dover, NH: George Wadleigh, 1862) pp. 42-43.

        • http://www.missiontoisrael.org/ Ted R. Weiland

          As for your statement regarding Christ's statement that His kingdom is not of this world, please consider the following:

          "Many Christians reject these inescapable facts of Yahweh’s sovereignty, believing He has no present kingdom or that His kingdom is limited to heaven. They lift their favorite proof text from John 18:
          'Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.'
          (John 18:36)

          "The same Greek phrase ek toú kósmou (translated “not of this world” in John 18:36) is used several times and is explained in the preceding chapter:

          'I have given them thy word; and the world hath hated them, because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world. I pray not that thou shouldest take them out of the world, but that thou shouldest keep them from the evil. They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world…. As thou hast sent me into the world, even so have I also sent them into the world.' (John 17:14-18)

          "Clearly ek toú kósmou does not mean Yahweh’s kingdom exists only in heaven. Although it is certainly true that His kingdom is not of this world, this does not mean that He does not intend for it to be in this world. John 18 is better understood to mean that Yahweh’s kingdom
          is nothing like the other kingdoms in this world. As someone once said, 'The only kingdom that will prevail in this world is the kingdom that is not of this world'...."

          For more, see Chapter 2 "The Kingdom: Yesterday, Today, and Forever" of "Bible Law vs. the United States Constitution: The Christian Perspective" at http://www.missiontoisrael.org/biblelaw-constitutionalism-pt2.php.

        • Laubach

          I should have read more from your website (that you shamelessly advertise by repeatedly posting it in every comment). You take Scripture out of context throughout your website and are clearly a teacher of heresy and do nothing but complain, spewing negativity and offering no solutions to what you tear down. I will not spend anymore time commenting on your posts. May God's Word reveal truth to you bringing about repentance that He may have mercy on your soul at the day of judgment.

  • nexgenesis

    It is because American voters have a choice in this election that the liberals have been working hard to bring to pass. This election is a choice between the people and the government. Socialism or Freedom. Our choice this election.

    • daves

      Stop saying, “This is the most important election in the history of our nation.”

      It’s not. The most important election in the history of our nation was when Abraham Lincoln was elected president. Before that, we thought it was okay to own people. Every generation thinks it’s living in the most important moment in history. We’re not, our parents were not and our children probably won’t be. And that’s OK.

      • Jim Kremsreiter

        daves, consider that in Lincoln's time they amended the Constitution - 13th, 14th & 15th Amendments were passed as a result of slavery. Now Obama just issues Executive Orders and judges reinterpret what the Constitution should mean. Founding Fathers intent be damned.

        • daves

          George Washington issued the very first executive order.

    • JJM123

      This election is a fight for our Life, Liberty, Pursuit of Happiness, Constitution, Republic as Founding Fathers intended and our way of life (or at least the way of our parent's lives). Lose the fight and we are destined to lose all the above.

  • djw663

    Let's see a FREE ENTERPRIZE and the CONSTITUTION and OPERTUNITY or Obama's version tough choice. LOL

  • Cheryl

    Good article. I have no one to argue points with, however - all four of my children are conservative. This is saying something because the single mom that raised them was radically left until 7 years ago. My daughter and I will be voting early (tomorrow). We are taking my 12-year-old granddaughter with us and will explain exactly some of the points you covered plus others while we vote for Mitt! We want to get Rylee off to a good start on being a patriotic American.

  • Jack Parker

    Why the panic? This election is only about the Supreme Court, the economic and political future of America, the well-being of the American public, the fate of freedom and Democracy in the world, you, me and the fates of our children and grandchildren forever. Is that really important laid against political correctness and reelecting the first "black" president?

  • david

    If we had a real choice, this election could be important. Both major candidates favor big wars abroad and big government at home.
    Very few people are willing to consider stopping the wars (terror, drugs, immigration) and drastically cutting government spending IMMEDIATELY to balance the budget within one term.

  • jd1958

    Most important election ever!!!! Why? We're deciding to go:
    1) Free market capitalism. Which has produce the Greatest Country Ever. OR
    2) Become a socialist state. Which historically ever country that has tried including our own failed to produce the desired utopia.
    So do we vote for a future in a capitalist society where freedom and liberty reign.
    or
    Do we vote for a future where the state tells you EVERYTHING and makes EVERY DECISION for you?

  • jd1958

    This election isn't the "haves vs the have nots". It's about Doers and Do nots, People of "will" or "will not". The have nots do not have because they "will not" "do" for themselves. Whereas people who have things and wealth are doers and will do for themselves whereas others (47%) wont.

  • Libert Calls

    Will Biden resign for Hillary to take over, as a reward for falling on the ax ?. Why not send her to Libya, as an Ambassador to Benghazi. Just a thought. What do you think ?.

  • DavidE

    You are right agbjr, our entire way of life depends on Romney & Ryan being victorious or we will be another second hand Russia. God forbid!