So, according to a couple of professors out of Washington University in St, Louis and the University of Virginia (by way of the New York Times), the Constitution is an outdated piece of parchment that has no place in the modern world, which is pretty much the view of the “progressives” who believe in a “living Constitution” (which is probably one of the dumbest legal-philosophical ideas in existence – the whole point of a constitution is to protect against change). The professors are publishing an article that documents how foreign countries are adopting constitutions that are modeled after non-American documents. According to one of the authors (per the Times), Professor David S. Law, the reason is that “[n]obody wants to copy Windows 3.1.” Also according to the article, Justice Ginsburg, during an interview in Egypt last week, stated “’I would not look to the United States Constitution if I were drafting a constitution in the year 2012,’. She recommended, instead, the South African Constitution, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms or the European Convention on Human Rights.”

This pretty appalling stuff, especially from Ginsburg. Our Constitution isn’t Windows 3.1 and newer constitutions aren’t necessarily improvements because they offer more “rights.” As Justice Scalia said “[e]very banana republic in the world has a bill of rights.” The strength of our Constitution derives from its annunciation of principles that all can agree upon and on its system of checks and balances. The Constitution exists to help limit federal government encroachment over the individual, and so it was purposefully drafted to allow the maximum amount of freedom possible to states and individuals at the expense of the federal government, except in cases where it is absolutely necessary to have a unified federal stance, such as national defense.