A single statement sums up the problem with the U.S. Constitution. In a televised interview, the late Supreme Court Judge Antonin Scalia explained how natural law does not have a place in the Constitution. Antonin referred to natural law as not a source of unenumerated rights.
Now, on the surface, that was not a surprising statement. For the Supreme Court of the United States does not make law; it merely interprets individual cases based on stare decisis, a chain of precedents derived from the interpretation of our 233-year-old constitution. The man was simply doing his job and sticking to the mandates he had been given. Not unlike how a police officer must enforce the law despite a potential personal disagreement with the law.
The more dangerous observation is that nobody in government writing or influencing law-making, including The Presidency and Congress, is in charge of aligning humanity’s rule with our best interpretation of the rule of nature. Scary because humanity’s progress and excellence are directly related to our compliance with nature’s authoritarian rule.
Nature, not the constitution, ultimately rules us. Our Constitution is at best a derivative.
Antonin’s fair suggestion was to use Congressional powers to rewrite the Constitution to adhere to nature’s law. A similar suggestion falling on deaf ears of Congress came -way earlier- from Thomas Jefferson (who never signed the Constitution), wanting the Constitution to be rewritten at least every 30 years. To no avail.
You cannot expect a man to wear a boy’s jacket.Thomas Jefferson
Our Constitution, borrowed from early Europeans afraid to lose their life from challenging the rules of their church, is like a bible. A frozen scripture now stuck in the revisionist history of compounding precedent by a succession of Supreme Court Judges.
But the “good part” of the Constitution is its “bad part”, its gaping inadequacies. Borne out of a limited purview of human understanding then, the gaping holes in our Constitution allow virtually any modern legislation, good or bad, to pass through. Thankfully, the weakened relevance of Constitutional boundaries no longer restricts the opportunity to innovate legislatively.
While innovative, needed, and powerful during its creation, today, the “commandments” of the Constitution, including its downstream amendments, represent lame-duck rules, stuck in outdated normalizations of truth, and unable to provide any uplifting answers to modern-day legislative requirements.
Our Missing Theory
However, the constitution’s real issue is a more fundamental, higher-order, and more significant problem unrelated to legislative accuracy and relevance that legal scholars can argue over until the cows come home.
The problem with our Constitution is that rules do not make a theory.
Rules are a consequence, not the cause of a theory. And without a theory, rules are merely rebels without a cause.
Likewise, if, apriori, we would not have established the theory of soccer to score goals that keeps an audience coming back for more, telling twenty-two people on a field, separated into two teams, not to touch the ball with their hands would not have amounted to goals scored.
Hence, the reliance on the Constitution as a blueprint for human excellence is the confounding of consequence and cause Nietzsche referred to as grave depravity of reason.
Supreme, the Constitution is not, as the discovery of new normalizations of truth makes abundantly clear. The U.S. Constitution must be demoted to achieve evolutionary relevant humanitarian objectives.
First, a theory must be established before identifying the rules needed to meet the theory’s expected objective. Like so:
Let me describe the method designed to fundamentally improve humanity, as depicted above.
First, we establish our best proxy of nature’s theory upon which humanity depends for survival. Nature’s observable precepts then lead to a set of tangible principles establishing a human theory promoting the human species’ life and regenerative excellence.
Then, we embed the human theory into a system, converting a specific input into the desired output according to said theory. Only once defined do we establish the rules, equivalent but undoubtedly different from our aging Constitution, to ensure the vile-maxim of individual pursuits of freedom does not damage the collective interest in freedom.
When human gameplay is established, we allow the selection of marketplace participants to produce the results the principles, theory, and systems, combined with rules presuppose. Undesirable outcomes will trigger revisions up the food chain, as pointed out in the slide.
Humanity must begin to remodel its excellence after the excellence of nature. In soccer parlance, to prolong our species’ longevity, human gameplay must begin to adhere to nature’s gameplay.
The rules we humans conjure up, uncorrelated, and many in vehement denial of nature’s principles, are the wasteful rebels without a cause we must obliterate.
Let’s fix what we know to be wrong before nature runs out of patience.